S7636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

economic, political and strategic interests

cannot be isolated or insulated from world

affairs; their successful engagement in world

affairs are America’s guarantor of prosperity

and peace.

An understanding of the cost-effectiveness

of U.S. foreign aid and a strong commitment

to maintain it as an efficient instrument of

foreign policy. Reduced in real-dollar terms

in recent budgets to less than 1 percent of

Federal spending—and the lowest, as a percentage of GNP, among major industrialized

nations—U.S. foreign aid serves to safeguard

America’s political and economic interests

abroad and spurs the development of new

markets, generates American jobs (with 3

out of 4 aid dollars spent at home), and helps

ease foreign crises that could escalate into

instability and military conflict.

Continued U.S. leadership in efforts to resolve regional conflicts in areas of vital economic, political and strategic interest; to

bar the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and to combat international terrorism that threatens America, Israel, moderate Arab states, and the values and institutions of modern civilization. America’s

role in the pursuit of Arab-Israeli reconciliation, and in the development of regional

economic and security arrangements to promote Middle East peace, has been, and continues to be, indispensable.

Continued U.S. leadership, active participation, and appropriate investment in multilateral and bilateral institutions, including

international lending agencies, trade and

health organizations, and the United Nations. These institutions are valuable tools

through which the United States, with vital

security and economic interests across the

globe, seeks global consensus on issues of national importance.

The protection of international human

rights as an essential component of U.S. foreign policy, reflecting America’s deepest values while advancing its interests in a safer

world. Indeed, at the founding conference of

the United Nations 50 years ago, it was

American Jewish Committee representatives

Joseph Proskauer and Jacob Blaustein who

argued persuasively that governments which

respect human rights in their own countries

are less likely to upset regional and global

stability.

This message, one of a series on public policy issues, was adopted by the Board of Governors of the American Jewish Committee at

its 89th Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.,

on May 3, 1995.

The American Jewish Committee, Robert

S. Rifkind, President; David A. Harris, Executive Director.

SENATOR THURMOND RECEIVES

HONORARY DEGREE

∑

f∑ Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on Saturday, May 20, 1995, Senator STROM

THURMOND received the honorary degree of doctor of medical jurisprudence

honoris causa during the 16th commencement ceremony of the Uniformed

Services University of the Health

Sciences [USUHS].

Our Nation’s only military medical

school recognized the President pro

tempore of the U.S. Senate and the

chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his ‘‘uncompromising commitment to excellence in military service and in particular, to military medicine.’’ Through his vision and

efforts, 2,148 USUHS physicians have

been commissioned into the uniformed

services; and, of those fine, uniformed

doctors, over 81 percent remain on active duty in the service of their Nation

beyond their initial service obligation.

Senator THURMOND’S leadership and

foresight played a major role in the

conception of USUHS. Through his

consistent support and recognition of

the importance of pre-war and wartime

knowledge of military medical requirements, the Congress established

USUHS and the scholarship program

[HPSP] as complementary sources of

accession for military physicians. In

1972, Public Law 92–426 established the

HPSP program to be a flexible source

for the quantity of doctors required by

the Armed Forces. USUHS was established to provide a corps of military

medical officers—presently 14 percent

of the total physician force—who would

provide continuity and leadership to

the medical services.

It was Senator THURMOND’s sound

and correct judgment that without

continuity and leadership, the lessons

learned in military medicine from past

wars are forgotten and must be relearned at the expense of the fighting

forces. Senator THURMOND has continuously understood that it is essential for

military medical readiness to maintain

enough physicians in the military services to ensure that the lessons learned

in military medicine during both combat and peacetime will be safeguarded.

Because of his tenacity, the USUHS

military medical personnel, faculty,

active duty alumni and programs continue to serve as the institutional

memory for military medicine.

During four major assaults attempting to close USUHS, Senator THURMOND’s fortitude and mettle have provided the steadfastness of purpose to

thwart those who do not understand

that there is a vast difference between

a civilian doctor in the military and a

military physician. Senator THURMOND’s military physicians have demonstrated immediate deployability and

played key roles in numerous military

and humanitarian operations at home

and abroad, including: Operation Just

Cause (Panama); Operations Desert

Shield and Desert Storm; Operation

Provide Comfort (Kurdish relief); Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Hurricanes

Hugo and Andrew relief operations; the

1993 Midwestern flood relief; the operations to restore democracy in Haiti,

and in operational planning support

provided in response to the 1995 bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma.

Without a doubt, through the passage

of time, the immediate deployability of

USUHS physicians to military and humanitarian operations, the extraordinary retention rates of the USUHS

graduates, the testimony of military

medical combat experts during congressional hearings in March and April

of 1994, the exceptional support from

both military and civilian medical

leadership and associations, the documentation from economic analyses

that verifies USUHS is a wise investment for the Federal Government, and

the renewed recognition of the need for

military medical readiness in support

of those whom we send into harm’s

way, have all combined to illuminate

the foresight and leadership of Senator

STROM THURMOND. He has truly proven

himself to be a visionary for the special needs of military medicine.

I sincerely thank Senator THURMOND

for his magnificent service to the Senate and to the Nation and join in the

standing ovation of the 2,000 attendees

at the USUHS commencement ceremony in recognition of his outstanding

leadership.

I ask to have printed in the RECORD

the citation conferring the honorary

degree upon Senator THURMOND.

SENATOR JAMES STROM THURMOND, DOCTOR

OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE HONORIS CAUSA

Senator Thurmond, over 70 years ago you

unselfishly answered your nation’s call for

service. Since that time, your commitment

to patriotism and concern for those who

serve their nation has won you the undying

respect of all Americans. Tens of thousands

of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have

benefitted from your uncompromising commitment to excellence in military service

and in particular, military medicine. To provide the care to those who serve when called

is sometimes more perilous in the legislature

than on the battlefield. You are a luminary

of health care delivery and support of those

who serve. Your vision has been tested and

proven from the battlefields of Vietnam,

Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Haiti, Somalia,

and the Persian Gulf to the clinics and

health centers that serve the American people. Your spirit and humanity, together with

your legislative acumen, have left a legacy

for this nation which is unmatched and truly

enviable. Through your efforts, this University is now a part of that legacy. Doctors,

nurses, and scientists are now serving their

nation because of your vision and commitment to purpose. Your nation’s health care

University takes great pride in awarding you

the degree of Doctor of Medical Jurisprudence Honoris Causa.

f∑

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

THE BUDGET

The text of the concurrent resolution

(H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998,

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as agreed to by

the Senate on Thursday, May 25, 1995,

is as follows:

Resolved, That the resolution from the

House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 67)

entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution setting forth

the congressional budget for the United

States Government for the fiscal years 1996,

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002’’, do pass

with the following amendment:

Strike out all after the resolving clause

and insert:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996.

(a) DECLARATION.—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.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for

fiscal year 1996.
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7637

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.

Sec. 102. Debt increase.

Sec. 103. Social Security.

Sec. 104. Major functional categories.

Sec. 105. Reconciliation.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND

RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.

Sec. 202. Extension of pay-as-you-go point of

order.

Sec. 203. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.

Sec. 204. Budget surplus allowance.

Sec. 205. Scoring of emergency legislation.

Sec. 206. Sale of Government assets.

Sec. 207. Credit reform and guaranteed student

loans.

Sec. 208. Extension of Budget Act 60-vote enforcement through 2002.

Sec. 209. Repeal of IRS allowance.

Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND

THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Restructuring Government and program terminations.

Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate regarding returning programs to the States.

Sec. 303. Commercialization of Federal activities.

Sec. 304. Nonpartisan Advisory Commission on

the CPI.

Sec. 305. Sense of the Congress on a uniform accounting system in the Federal

Government and nonpartisan

commission on accounting and

budgeting.

Sec. 306. Sense of the Congress that 90 percent

of the benefits of any tax cuts

must go to the middle class.

Sec. 307. Bipartisan Commission on the Solvency of Medicare.

Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on the distribution

of agriculture savings.

Sec. 309. Sense of the Congress regarding protection of children’s health.

Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses should remain nondeductible.

Sec. 311. Expatriate taxes.

Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding losses of

trust funds due to fraud and

abuse in the medicare program.

Sec. 313. Sense of the Congress regarding full

funding for Decade of the Brain

research.

Sec. 314. Consideration of the Independent

Budget for Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 1996.

Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate regarding the costs

of the National Voter Registration

Act of 1993.

Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

Sec. 317. Sense of Congress regarding funds to

defend against sexual harassment.

Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding financial responsibility to schools affected by Federal activities.

Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate to eliminate the

earnings penalty.

Sec. 320. Student loan cuts.

Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding the nutritional health of children.

Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate on maintaining

Federal funding for law enforcement.

Sec. 323. Need to enact long term health care reform.

Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate regarding mandatory major assumptions under

function 270: Energy.

Sec. 325. Defense overhead.

Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding the essential air service program of the

Department of Transportation.

Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate regarding the priority that should be given to renewable energy and energy efficiency research, development, and

demonstration activities.

Sec. 328. Foreign Sales Corporations income exclusion.

TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,

2000, 2001, and 2002:

(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—(A) For purposes of

the enforcement of this resolution—

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

Fiscal year 1996: $1,043,275,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,083,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,135,450,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,189,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,248,950,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,315,750,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,386,675,000,000.

(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are

as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $275,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $450,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $2,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $2,750,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,550,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,675,000,000.

(iii) 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.

(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital Insurance Trust

Fund)—

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

Fiscal year 1996: $938,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $973,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,019,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,067,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,120,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,180,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,244,600,000,000.

(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed are

as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: ¥$595,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: ¥$701,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: ¥$793,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $902,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,201,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $11,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: ¥$6,000,000.

(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—(A) For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the

appropriate levels of total new budget authority

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,269,375,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,296,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,344,650,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,387,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,446,350,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,473,550,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,519,775,000,000.

(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital Insurance Trust

Fund), the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,171,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,194,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,237,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,272,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,324,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,342,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,377,900,000,000.

(3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.—(A) For purposes of

the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,275,675,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,293,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,321,250,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,368,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,423,850,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,452,550,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,500,175,000,000.

(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital Insurance Trust

Fund), the appropriate levels of total budget

outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $1,179,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $1,193,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $1,214,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $1,255,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $1,302,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $1,322,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,500,000,000.

(4) DEFICITS.—(A) For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the

deficits are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $232,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $209,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $185,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $178,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $174,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $136,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $113,500,000,000.

(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital Insurance Trust

Fund), the amounts of the deficits are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $240,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $219,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $195,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $187,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $182,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $141,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $114,900,000,000.

(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—The appropriate levels of

the public debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $5,201,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $5,481,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $5,734,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $5,980,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $6,219,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $6,421,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $6,599,500,000,000.

(6) DIRECT LOAN OBLIGATIONS.—The appropriate levels of total new direct loan obligations

are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $37,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $40,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $42,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $45,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $45,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $45,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $46,100,000,000.

(7) PRIMARY LOAN GUARANTEE COMMITMENTS.—The appropriate levels of new primary

loan guarantee commitments are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $193,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $187,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $185,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $183,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $184,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $186,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $187,600,000,000.

SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

The amounts of the increase in the public debt

subject to limitation are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $298,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $279,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $253,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $245,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $239,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $202,800,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $177,700,000,000.
S7638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

SEC. 103. SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUES.—For purposes of Senate enforcement under sections 302

and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

the amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-Age

and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the

Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as

follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $374,700,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $392,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $411,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $430,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $452,000,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $475,200,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $498,600,000,000.

(b) SOCIAL SECURITY OUTLAYS.—For purposes

of Senate enforcement under sections 302 and

311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the

amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and

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

Fiscal year 1996: $299,400,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $310,900,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $324,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $338,500,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $353,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $368,100,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $383,800,000,000.

SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the

appropriate levels of new budget authority,

budget outlays, new direct loan obligations, and

new primary loan guarantee commitments for

fiscal years 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.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $253,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

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.

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.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $276,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $267,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $267,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $269,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(2) International Affairs (150):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.

(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.

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.

(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.

(3) General Science, Space, and Technology

(250):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary 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.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary 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.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary 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.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.

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

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

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $2,600,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000.

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

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

(D) New primary 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.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

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

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

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

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

Fiscal year 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.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

(B) Outlays, $18,300,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

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

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

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

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,500,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

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

(B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7639

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,500,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$10,900,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,600,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

(B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,400,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$11,100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$10,900,000,000.

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

(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, $1,400,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.

(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.

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$7,000,000,000

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

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

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.

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.

(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.

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(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.

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$3,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

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

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $36,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $38,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $32,800,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $39,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $31,800,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $31,300,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.

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

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

(9) Community and Regional Development

(450):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $5,800,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $5,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $7,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.

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

(10) Education, Training, Employment, and

Social Services (500):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $48,975,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $52,575,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$13,600,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $49,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$16,300,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $48,450,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,250,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$19,100,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $48,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$21,800,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $49,350,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,850,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$21,900,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $48,850,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,350,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$22,000,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $49,075,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $48,575,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations,

$22,200,000,000.

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

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $121,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $121,030,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $127,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $127,420,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $133,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $133,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $138,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $137,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $142,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $141,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $146,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $146,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $150,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $150,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $171,900,000,000.
S7640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

(B) Outlays, $169,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $178,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $193,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $191,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $207,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $204,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $221,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $219,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $238,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $236,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $258,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(13) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act, Federal Supplementary Medical

Insurance Trust Fund:

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $61,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $60,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $66,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $65,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $73,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $73,000,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $81,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $81,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $90,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $89,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $100,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $99,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $112,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $111,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(14) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $226,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $225,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $233,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $235,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $253,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $246,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $257,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $272,600,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $277,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $277,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $291,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $291,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(15) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $37,400,000,000.

(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.

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $37,700,000,000.

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

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

Fiscal year 1998:

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

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

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

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

(B) Outlays, $38,200,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $18,600,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000:

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

(B) Outlays, $39,400,000,000.

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

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $19,300,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $38,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.

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

(17) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $21,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $21,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(18) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 1996:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7641

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

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

(B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

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

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

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

(B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

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

(B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(19) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $297,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $297,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $308,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $308,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $316,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $316,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $327,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $327,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $338,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $338,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $345,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $345,500,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $353,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $353,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(20) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act, Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, $308,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $308,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, $319,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $319,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, $326,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $326,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, $337,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $337,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, $346,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $346,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, $351,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $351,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, $356,400,000,000.

(B) Outlays, $356,400,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(21) The corresponding levels of gross interest

on the public debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 1996: $369,598,000,000.

Fiscal year 1997: $380,164,000,000.

Fiscal year 1998: $388,144,000,000.

Fiscal year 1999: $400,182,000,000.

Fiscal year 2000: $411,444,000,000.

Fiscal year 2001: $421,668,000,000.

Fiscal year 2002: $430,760,000,000.

(22) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$7,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,070,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$7,500,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$7,580,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$6,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$5,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$6,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$5,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$33,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$33,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$33,800,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$33,800,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$37,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$37,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

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

(B) Outlays, ¥$39,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2001:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$41,100,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$41,100,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2002:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$42,300,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$42,300,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

(24) For purposes of section 710 of the Social

Security Act, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts

(950):

Fiscal year 1996:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$30,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$30,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1997:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$31,200,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$31,200,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1998:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$33,600,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$33,600,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 1999:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,900,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$34,900,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

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

Fiscal year 2000:

(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,700,000,000.

(B) Outlays, ¥$36,700,000,000.

(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

(D) New primary 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.

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.

SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION.

(a) SENATE COMMITTEES.—Not later than July

14, 1995, the committees named in this subsection
S7642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on

the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,

AND FORESTRY.—The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in section

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

Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays

$2,490,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $27,973,000,000

for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000,

and $45,804,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2002.

(2) COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.—The Senate Committee on Armed Services shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays

$21,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $338,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$649,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(3) COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND

URBAN AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to

reduce the deficit $373,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$5,742,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $6,690,000,000 for the period of

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(4) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND

TRANSPORTATION.—The Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to

reduce the deficit $2,464,000,000 in fiscal year

1996, $21,937,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $33,685,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(5) COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.—The Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $1,771,000,000 in fiscal year

1996, $4,775,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $5,001,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(6) COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC

WORKS.—The Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $106,000,000 in fiscal year

1996, $1,290,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $2,236,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(7) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—The Senate Committee on Finance shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $21,657,000,000 in fiscal

year 1996, $278,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2000, and $519,002,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(8) COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.—The

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending to reduce outlays $0 in

fiscal year 1996, $0 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $0 for the period of fiscal

years 1996 through 2002.

(9) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $118,000,000 in fiscal year 1996,

$3,023,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $6,871,000,000 for the period of

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(10) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The Senate Committee on the Judiciary shall report

changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays

$119,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $923,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$1,483,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

(11) COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES.—The Senate Committee on Labor and

Human Resources shall report changes in laws

within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays $266,000,000 in fiscal year

1996, $2,990,000,000 for the period of fiscal years

1996 through 2000, and $4,395,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(12) COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION.—The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration shall report changes in laws within

its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to

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

$37,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2000, and $72,000,000 for the period of

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

(13) COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS.—The

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that

provide direct spending to reduce outlays

$301,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,760,000,000 for

the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and

$10,002,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996

through 2002.

TITLE II—BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND

RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) DEFINITION.—As used in this section and

for the purposes of allocations made pursuant to

section 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974, for the discretionary category, the term

‘‘discretionary spending limit’’ means—

(1) with respect to fiscal year 1996—

(A) for the defense category $258,379,000,000 in

new budget authority and $262,035,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$219,441,000,000 in new budget authority and

$264,908,000,000 in outlays;

(2) with respect to fiscal year 1997—

(A) for the defense category $254,028,000,000 in

new budget authority and $257,695,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$212,164,000,000 in new budget authority and

$249,248,000,000 in outlays;

(3) with respect to fiscal year 1998—

(A) for the defense category $260,321,000,000 in

new budget authority and $255,226,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$219,177,000,000 in new budget authority and

$244,735,000,000 in outlays;

(4) with respect to fiscal year 1999—

(A) for the defense category $266,906,000,000 in

new budget authority and $260,331,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$210,509,000,000 in new budget authority and

$242,212,000,000 in outlays;

(5) with respect to fiscal year 2000—

(A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in

new budget authority and $268,468,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$215,463,000,000 in new budget authority and

$243,078,000,000 in outlays;

(6) with respect to fiscal year 2001—

(A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in

new budget authority and $268,468,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$219,384,000,000 in new budget authority and

$248,786,000,000 in outlays; and

(7) with respect to fiscal year 2002—

(A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in

new budget authority and $270,000,000,000 in

outlays; and

(B) for the nondefense category

$218,784,000,000 in new budget authority and

$248,160,000,000 in outlays;

as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency appropriations.

(b) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the Senate

to consider—

(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget

for fiscal year 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,

or 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that provides discretionary spending in excess of the sum of the defense and nondefense discretionary spending

limits for such fiscal year; or

(B) any appropriations bill or resolution (or

amendment, motion, or conference report on

such appropriations bill or resolution) for fiscal

year 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or

2002 that would exceed any of the discretionary

spending limits in this section or suballocations

of those limits made pursuant to section 602(b)

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(2) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not apply

if a declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint resolution pursuant to section

258 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.

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

suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative

vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen

and sworn.

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

decisions of the Chair relating to any provision

of this section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be

equally divided between, and controlled by, the

appellant and the manager of the concurrent

resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case

may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the

Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn,

shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of

order raised under this section.

(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For

purposes of this section, the levels of new budget

authority, outlays, new entitlement authority,

and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the

Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT

OF ORDER.

(a) PURPOSE.—The Senate declares that it is

essential to—

(1) ensure continued compliance with the balanced budget plan set forth in this resolution;

and

(2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement

system.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the

Senate to consider any direct-spending or receipts legislation (as defined in paragraph (3))

that would increase the deficit for any one of

the three applicable time periods (as defined in

paragraph (2)) as measured pursuant to paragraph (4).

(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS.—For purposes

of this subsection, the term ‘‘applicable time period’’ means any one of the three following periods—

(A) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the

budget;

(B) the period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent

resolution on the budget; or

(C) the period of the 5 fiscal years following

the first 5 years covered by the most recently

adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

(3) DIRECT-SPENDING OR RECEIPTS LEGISLATION.—For purposes of this subsection, the term

‘‘direct-spending or receipts legislation’’ shall—

(A) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, include all direct-spending legislation

as that term is interpreted for purposes of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;

(B) include—

(i) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report to which this subsection otherwise applies; and

(ii) the estimated amount of savings in directspending programs applicable to that fiscal year

resulting from the prior year’s sequestration

under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, if any (except for any

amounts sequestered as a result of a net deficit

increase in the fiscal year immediately preceding

the prior fiscal year); and
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7643

(C) exclude—

(i) any concurrent resolution on the budget;

and

(ii) full funding of, and continuation of, the

deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

(4) BASELINE.—Estimates prepared pursuant

to this section shall—

(A) use the baseline used for the most recent

concurrent resolution on the budget, and for

years beyond those covered by that concurrent

resolution; and

(B) abide by the requirements of subsections

(a) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

1985, except that references to ‘‘outyears’’ in

that section shall be deemed to apply to any

year (other than the budget year) covered by

any one of the time periods defined in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

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

suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative

vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen

and sworn.

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

decisions of the Chair relating to any provision

of this section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be

equally divided between, and controlled by, the

appellant and the manager of the bill or joint

resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative

vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in

the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of

the Chair on a point of order raised under this

section.

(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For

purposes of this section, the levels of new budget

authority, outlays, and receipts for a fiscal year

shall be determined on the basis of estimates

made by the Committee on the Budget of the

Senate.

(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 23 of

House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d Congress) is repealed.

(g) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (e) of

this section shall expire September 30, 2002.

SEC. 203. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—After passage of a conference report on legislation complying with the

reconciliation requirements of section 105, revenue and spending aggregates shall be reduced

and allocations shall be revised for legislation

that reduces revenues within a committee’s jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee

of conference on such legislation reports such

legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of

such legislation are not included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of

such legislation will not increase the deficit in

this resolution for—

(1) fiscal year 1996;

(2) the period of fiscal years 1996 through

2000; or

(3) the period of fiscal years 2001 through

2005.

(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—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 may file with the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels

and aggregates to carry out this subsection.

These revised allocations, functional levels, and

aggregates shall be considered for the purposes

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates contained in this concurrent resolution on the

budget.

(c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The

appropriate committee shall report appropriately

revised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b)

and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to carry out this section.

SEC. 204. BUDGET SURPLUS ALLOWANCE.

(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—For the purposes of points

of order under the Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and this concurrent resolution on the budget, the revenue

aggregates shall be reduced and other appropriate budgetary aggregates and levels shall be

revised to reflect the additional deficit reduction

achieved as calculated under subsection (c) for

legislation that reduces revenues by providing

family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic

growth.

(b) REVISED 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 shall submit to the

Senate appropriately revised budgetary aggregates and levels by an amount that does not exceed the additional deficit reduction calculated

under subsection (d).

(c) CBO REVISED DEFICIT ESTIMATE.—After

the enactment of legislation that complies with

the reconciliation directives of section 105, the

Congressional Budget Office shall provide the

Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the

Senate a revised estimate of the deficit for fiscal

years 1996 through 2005.

(d) ADDITIONAL DEFICIT REDUCTION.—For

purposes of this section, the term ‘‘additional

deficit reduction’’ means the amount by which

the total deficit levels assumed in this resolution

for a fiscal year exceed the revised deficit estimate provided pursuant to subsection (c) for

such fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through

2005.

(e) CBO CERTIFICATION AND CONTINGENCIES.—

This section shall not apply unless—

(1) legislation has been enacted complying

with the reconciliation directives of section 105;

(2) the Director of the Congressional Budget

Office has provided the estimate required by

subsection (c); and

(3) the revisions made pursuant to this subsection do not cause a budget deficit for fiscal

year 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005.

SEC. 205. SCORING OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

Notwithstanding section 606(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and beginning

with fiscal year 1996, the determinations under

sections 302, 303, and 311 of such Act shall take

into account any new budget authority, new entitlement authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit

effects as a consequence of the provisions of section 251(b)(2)(D) and 252(e) of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

1985.

SEC. 206. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

(a) SENSE OF THE 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

sales.

(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—For purposes of

any concurrent resolution on the budget and

the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control 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) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section,

the term ‘‘sale of an asset’’ shall have the same

meaning as under section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985.

(d) TREATMENT OF LOAN ASSETS.—For the

purposes of this section, the sale of loan assets

or the prepayment of a loan shall be governed

by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act of

1990.

SEC. 207. CREDIT REFORM AND GUARANTEED

STUDENT LOANS.

For the purposes of allocations and points of

order under the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 and this resolution, the cost of a direct loan

shall be the net present value, at the time when

the direct loan is disbursed, of the following

cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:

(1) Loan disbursements.

(2) Repayments of principal.

(3) Payments of interest 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 legislation increasing direct

loan commitments for a program in which loan

commitments will equal or exceed $5,000,000,000

for the coming fiscal year (or for any prior fiscal

year), direct expenses, including—

(A) activities related to credit extension, loan

origination, loan servicing, training, program

promotion, management of contractors, and

payments to contractors, other government entities, and program participants;

(B) collection of delinquent loans; and

(C) writeoff and closeout of loans.

SEC. 208. EXTENSION OF BUDGET ACT 60-VOTE

ENFORCEMENT THROUGH 2002.

Notwithstanding section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

Act of 1985 (as amended by sections 13112(b) and

13208(b)(3) of the Budget Enforcement Act of

1990), the second sentence of section 904(c) of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (except insofar as it relates to section 313 of that Act) and

the final sentence of section 904(d) of that Act

(except insofar as it relates to section 313 of that

Act) shall continue to have effect as rules of the

Senate through (but no later than) September

30, 2002.

SEC. 209. REPEAL OF IRS ALLOWANCE.

(a) Section 25 of House Concurrent Resolution

218 (103d Congress, 2d Session) is repealed.

(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the revenue levels contained in the budget resolution

should assume passage of the ‘‘Taxpayers Bill of

Rights 2’’ and that the Senate should pass the

Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2 this Congress.

(c) It is the sense of the Senate that funding

for tax compliance efforts should be a top priority and that the assumptions underlying the

functional totals in this resolution include the

administration’s full request for the Internal

Revenue Service.

SEC. 210. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The Senate adopts the provisions of this

title—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of

the Senate, and as such they shall be considered

as part of the rules of the Senate, and such

rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional

right of the Senate to change those rules (so far

as they relate to the Senate) at any time, in the

same manner, and to the same extent as in the

case of any other rule of the Senate.

TITLE III—SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND

THE SENATE

SEC. 301. RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT AND

PROGRAM TERMINATIONS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that to balance the Federal budget in a rational and reasonable manner requires an assessment of national priorities and the appropriate role of the

Federal Government in meeting the challenges

facing the United States in the 21st century.

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

the Senate that to balance the budget the Congress should—
S7644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

(1) restructure Federal programs to meet identified national priorities in the most effective

and efficient manner so that program dollars get

to the intended purpose or recipient;

(2) terminate programs that have largely met

their goals, that have outlived their original

purpose, or that have been superseded by other

programs;

(3) seek to end significant duplication among

Federal programs, which results in excessive administrative costs and ill serve the American

people; and

(4) eliminate lower priority programs.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETURNING PROGRAMS TO THE

STATES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) section 8 of article I of the Constitution

grants the Federal Government limited powers

and the 10th amendment to the Constitution expressly provides that the powers not delegated

to the Federal Government are reserved to the

States and the people;

(2) in fiscal year 1993, the Federal Government

provided funds to States and localities through

593 categorical programs totaling

$206,000,000,000;

(3) in attempting to solve every problem of society, the Federal Government is overburdening

the States and its citizens with cumbersome and

intrusive laws, programs, regulations, and mandates; and

(4) in administering many Federal programs,

the States are often better equipped to determine

and respond to the particular needs of the people than the Federal Government.

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

the Senate that—

(1) Federal programs should be reviewed to determine whether they are an appropriate function of the Federal Government and whether

they are more appropriately a responsibility of

the States consistent with the 10th amendment

to the Constitution;

(2) Federal resources should be provided in a

manner which rewards work, promotes families,

and provides a helping hand during times of crisis;

(3) the Federal Government should seek a new

partnership with States that recognizes that

‘‘one size fits all’’ solutions of the past are

flawed;

(4) this new partnership should include block

grants that provide maximum flexibility to

States and localities in terms of the design and

structure of programs to ensure the maximum

benefit at the least cost to the American taxpayer;

(5) Federal funds must not be used to supplant existing expenditures by individuals, localities, and States;

(6) block grants should not be reduced to revenue sharing;

(7) adequate safeguards should be in place to

protect the Federal investment, such as auditing

or maintenance of effort provisions; and

(8) the inclusion of Federal goals and principles in block grant programs may be appropriate, as well as essential data collection requirements for evaluation purposes.

SEC. 303. COMMERCIALIZATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) there are a number of functions being performed by the Federal Government that should

not be performed by the Federal Government because they could be more conveniently and efficiently provided by the private sector;

(2) our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that created a Federal Government of limited powers and limited responsibility;

(3) the current Federal Government owns onethird of the land of this great Nation, oil fields,

hospitals, railroads, Tokyo office buildings, electric companies, 4,900,000 housing units which

are owned outright by Housing and Urban Development or are eligible for Housing and Urban

Development subsidy payments, and loan portfolios that are larger than most of the financial

institutions in the country; and

(4)(A) the Federal Government’s encroachment into the private sector is significant, often

duplicative, inconsistent with free market principles, and costly for taxpayers;

(B) when the Federal Government monopolizes a service that could be provided by the private sector it usually costs taxpayers 30 percent

more; and

(C) one-fourth of the work done by Federal

employees competes with the private sector.

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

the Senate that—

(1) Congress should better define privatization

and how it can contribute to ‘‘right sizing’’ the

Federal Government and at the same time

achieve better service, more innovation, and significant deficit reduction;

(2) privatization can take at least four forms:

asset sales, contracting out, creating corporate

enterprises under strict and clearly defined

deadlines designed to achieve full privatization,

and eliminating legislative barriers, generically

called ‘‘private sector lockouts’’;

(3) provisions of law that prohibit or ‘‘lockout’’ the private sector from competing for providing certain services should be examined and

eliminated;

(4) the private sector from Main Street, Wall

Street and Academia should be encouraged by

the President and the Congress to bring forward

their privatization best practices and proposals

for privatization;

(5) the Head of each Federal agency and department and the Office of Management and

Budget should designate senior level staff persons to develop and evaluate private sector privatization initiatives that should be included in

the President’s budget;

(6)(A) the Office of Management and Budget

should set appropriate privatization goals for

each agency; and

(B) no expansions of programs under a department’s jurisdiction should be approved by

the Office of Management and Budget unless

the agency has achieved those privatization

goals;

(7) section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and

Emergency Deficit Control Act which prohibits

crediting savings from asset sales should be repealed or modified; and

(8) Congress should evaluate privatization

processes taking place in other countries to determine what lessons could be learned so that

United States could develop a comprehensive

privatization policy by the end of the next fiscal

year.

SEC. 304. NONPARTISAN ADVISORY COMMISSION

ON THE CPI.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) Congress intended to insulate certain government beneficiaries and taxpayers from the effects of inflation by indexing payments and tax

brackets to the Consumer Price Index (CPI);

(2) approximately 30 percent of total Federal

outlays and 45 percent of Federal revenues are

indexed to reflect changes in the CPI; and

(3) the overwhelming consensus among experts

is that the method used to construct the CPI

and the current calculation of the CPI both

overstate the estimate of the true cost of living.

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

the Senate that—

(1) a temporary advisory commission should be

established to make objective and nonpartisan

recommendations concerning the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology and calculations that determine the CPI;

(2) the Commission should be appointed on a

nonpartisan basis, and should be composed of

experts in the fields of economics, statistics, or

other related professions; and

(3) the Commission should report its recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics

and to Congress at the earliest possible date.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON A UNIFORM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IN THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NONPARTISAN COMMISSION ON ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING.

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

(1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal internal accounting controls in

the past. Although progress has been made in

recent years, there still exists no uniform Federal accounting system for Federal Government

entities and institutions.

(2) As a result, Federal financial management

continues to be seriously deficient, and Federal

financial management and fiscal practices have

failed to identify costs, failed to reflect the total

liabilities of congressional actions, and failed to

accurately report the financial condition of the

Federal Government.

(3) Current Federal accounting practices do

not adequately report financial problems of the

Federal Government or the full cost of programs

and activities. The continued use of these practices undermines the Government’s ability to

provide credible and reliable financial data,

contributes to waste and inefficiency, and will

not assist in achieving a balanced budget.

(4) Waste and inefficiency in Federal Government undermine the confidence of the American

people in the Government and reduces the Federal Government’s ability to address adequately

vital public needs.

(5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the Federal Government and restore public confidence in the Federal Government, a uniform Federal accounting system, that fully

meets the accounting standards and reporting

objectives for the Federal Government, must be

immediately established so that all assets and liabilities, revenues and expenditures or expenses,

and the full cost of programs and activities of

the Federal Government can be consistently and

accurately recorded, monitored, and uniformly

reported throughout all government entities for

budgeting and control and management evaluation purposes.

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

the Congress that the assumptions underlying

the functional totals in this resolution include

the following assumptions:

(1) UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.—

(A) A uniform Federal accounting system should

be established to consistently compile financial

data across the Federal Government, and to

make full disclosure of Federal financial data,

including the full cost of Federal programs and

activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the

President, and agency management.

(B) Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the President should require the heads of agencies to—

(i) implement and maintain a uniform Federal

accounting system; and

(ii) provide financial statements;

in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis and

established in accordance with proposed Federal

accounting standards and interpretations recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board and other applicable law.

(2) NONPARTISAN ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING.—(A) A temporary advisory commission should be established to make

objective and nonpartisan recommendations for

the appropriate treatment of capital expenditures under a uniform Federal accounting system that is consistent with generally accepted

accounting principles.

(B) The Commission should be appointed on a

nonpartisan basis, and should be composed of

public and private experts in the fields of finance, economics, accounting, and other related

professions.

(C) The Commission should report to the

President and the Congress by August 1, 1995,

on its recommendations, and should include in

its report a detailed plan for implementing such

recommendations.
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7645

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT 90 PERCENT OF THE BENEFITS OF ANY TAX

CUTS MUST GO TO THE MIDDLE

CLASS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) the incomes of middle-class families have

stagnated since the early 1980’s, with family incomes growing more slowly between 1979 and

1989 than in any other business cycle since

World War II; and

(2) according to the Department of the Treasury, in 1996, approximately 90 percent of American families will have incomes less than

$100,000.

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

Congress that if the 1996 Concurrent Budget

Resolution includes any cut in taxes, approximately 90 percent of the benefits of these tax

cuts must go to working families with incomes

less than $100,000.

SEC. 307. BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) the Health Insurance for the Aged Act,

which created the medicare program, was enacted on July 30, 1965, and, therefore, the medicare program will celebrate its 30-year anniversary on July 30, 1995;

(2) on April 3, 1995, the Trustees of medicare

submitted their 1995 Annual Report on the Status of the Medicare Program to the Congress;

(3) the Trustees of medicare have concluded

that ‘‘the medicare program is clearly

unsustainable in its present form’’;

(4) the Trustees of medicare have concluded

that ‘‘the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund,

which pays inpatient hospital expenses, will be

able to pay benefits for only about 7 years and

is severely out of financial balance in the long

range’’;

(5) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that ‘‘the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund shows a rate of growth of costs

which is clearly unsustainable’’;

(6) the Trustees of medicare have recommended ‘‘legislation to reestablish the Quadrennial Advisory Council that will help lead to

effective solutions to the problems of the program’’;

(7) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement

and Tax Reform concluded that, absent longterm changes in medicare, projected medicare

outlays will increase from about 4 percent of the

payroll tax base today to over 15 percent of the

payroll tax base by the year 2030;

(8) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement

and Tax Reform recommended, by a vote of 30 to

1, that spending and revenues available for

medicare must be brought into long-term balance;

(9) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that ‘‘We had hoped for several years

that comprehensive health reform would include

meaningful medicare reforms. However, with the

results of the last Congress, it is now clear that

medicare reform needs to be addressed urgently

as a distinct legislative initiative’’; and

(10) the Public Trustees of medicare ‘‘strongly

recommend that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the medicare trust funds be

urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis,

including a review of the programs’s financing

methods, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms.’’.

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

the Congress that—

(1) a special bipartisan commission should be

established immediately to make recommendations concerning the most appropriate response

to the short-term solvency and long-term sustainability issues facing medicare;

(2) the commission should report to Congress

its recommendations on the appropriate response to the short-term solvency of medicare by

July 10, 1995, in order that the committees of jurisdiction may consider those recommendations

in fashioning an appropriate congressional response; and

(3) the commission should report its recommendations to respond to the Public Trustees’

call to make medicare’s financial condition sustainable over the long term to Congress by February 1, 1996.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURE SAVINGS.

It is the sense of the Senate that, in response

to the reconciliation instructions in section 105

of this resolution, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry should provide that no more than 20 percent of the savings

be achieved in commodity programs.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN’S

HEALTH.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) Today’s children and the next generation

are the prime beneficiaries of the benefits of attaining a balanced Federal budget. Without a

balanced budget, today’s children must bear the

increasing burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit spending would doom future generations to slower economic growth and lower living standards.

(2) The health of children is essential to the

future economic and social well-being of the Nation.

(3) Medicaid covers one in four children and

one in three births. Nearly 60 percent of children

covered by medicaid are from working families.

(4) While children represent one-half of all

people eligible for medicaid, they account for

less than 25 percent of medicaid expenditures.

(5) Medicaid provides a broad range of services essential for the health of a significant portion of the Nation’s children with disabilities.

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

Congress that—

(1) the health care needs of low-income pregnant women and children should be a top priority;

(2) careful study must be made of the impact

of medicaid reform proposals on children’s

health and on vital sources of care including

children’s hospitals and community and migrant

health centers; and

(3) medicaid reform legislation which would

allow greater State flexibility in the delivery of

care and in the control of the rate of growth in

costs of the program should also encourage

States to place a priority on coverage for pregnant women and children.

SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT LOBBYING

EXPENSES SHOULD REMAIN NONDEDUCTIBLE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that ordinary

Americans generally are not allowed to deduct

the costs of communicating with their elected

representatives.

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

the Senate that lobbying expenses should not be

tax deductible.

SEC. 311. EXPATRIATE TAXES.

It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) Congress should revise the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that very wealthy individuals are not able to reduce or avoid their United

States income, estate, or gift tax liability by relinquishing their United States citizenship; and

(2) the increased revenues resulting from the

revision should be used to reduce the deficit.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING

LOSSES OF TRUST FUNDS DUE TO

FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the General Accounting Office estimates

that as much as $100,000,000,000 are wasted each

year in the health care system due to fraud and

abuse;

(2) outlays for the medicare program under

title XVIII of the Social Security Act during fiscal year 1994 were $161,100,000,000, and the General Accounting Office estimates that up to 10

percent of those outlays were wasted because of

fraud and abuse;

(3) medicare beneficiaries incur higher out-ofpocket costs and copayments due to inflated billings resulting from fraudulent and abusive

practices perpetrated against the medicare program; and

(4) funds lost because of fraud and abuse are

contributing to the financial crises of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the

Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance

Trust Fund, as identified by the Boards of

Trustees of such trust funds in their 1995 annual reports.

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

the Senate that as the Committee on Finance of

the Senate and, if established, the Bipartisan

Commission on the Solvency of Medicare recommended under section 307, address the longterm solvency of the medicare program under

title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395 et seq.), high priority should be given to

proposals which identify, eliminate, and recover

funds expended from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund due to

fraud and abuse in such program. In addition,

the Senate assumes that funds recovered from

enhanced anti-fraud and abuse efforts be used

to fund health care anti-fraud and abuse enforcement efforts, reimbursements to the Federal

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal

Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund

for losses due to fraud and abuse, and deficit reduction.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING

FULL FUNDING FOR DECADE OF THE

BRAIN RESEARCH.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) long-term health care costs associated with

diseases and disorders of the brain have a substantial impact on Federal expenditures for

medicaid and medicare, and on the earning potential of the Nation;

(2) to highlight the impact of brain diseases

and disorders on the economy and well being of

the Nation the Congress has declared the 1990’s

the Decade of the Brain;

(3) meaningful research has been initiated as

part of the Decade of the Brain;

(4) if fully funded this research could provide

important new medical breakthroughs; and

(5) these breakthroughs could result in a significant reduction in costs to the Federal Government.

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

the Congress that in furtherance of the goals of

the Decade of the Brain the appropriate committees should seek to ensure that full funding is

provided for research on brain diseases and disorders in each of the fiscal years to which this

resolution applies.

SEC. 314. CONSIDERATION OF THE INDEPENDENT

BUDGET FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS,

FISCAL YEAR 1996.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows:

(1) Whereas over 26,000,000 veterans are eligible for veterans health care;

(2) Whereas the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest Federal medical care delivery

system in the United States, providing for the

medical care needs of our Nation’s veterans;

(3) Whereas the veterans’ service organizations have provided a plan, known as the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs, to reform

the veterans’ health care delivery system to

adapt it to the modern health care environment

and improve its ability to meet the health care

needs of veterans in a cost-effective manner;

(4) Whereas current budget proposals assume

a change in the definition of service-connected

veterans;

(5) Whereas proposals contained within the

Independent Budget may provide improved service to veterans;

(6) Whereas current budget proposals may not

have fully considered the measures proposed by

the veterans’ service organizations in the Independent Budget.
S7646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 26, 1995

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

Congress that the reforms and proposals contained within the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 1996 should be given

careful consideration in an effort to ensure the

Nation’s commitment to its veterans.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE

COSTS OF THE NATIONAL VOTER

REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.

It is the sense of the Senate that within the

assumptions under budget function 800 funds

will be spent for reimbursement to the States for

the costs of implementing the National Voter

Registration Act of 1993.

SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

FUND.

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying function 800 include the following: That payments to presidential campaigns from the Presidential Election Campaign

Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1974, should not be used to pay

for or augment damage awards or settlements

arising from a civil or criminal action, or the

threat thereof, related to sexual harassment.

SEC. 317. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING

FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL

HARASSMENT.

It is the sense of Congress that no Member of

Congress or the Executive Branch may use campaign funds or privately donated funds to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.

SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO

SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL

ACTIVITIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds as follows:

(1) In order to fulfill its responsibility to communities that were adversely affected by Federal

activities, the Congress established the Impact

Aid program in 1950.

(2) The Impact Aid program is intended to

ease the burden on local school districts for educating children who live on Federal property.

Since Federal property is exempt from local

property taxes, such districts are denied the primary source of revenue used to finance elementary and secondary education. Most Impact Aid

payments are made for students whose parents

are in the uniformed services, or for students

who reside on Indian lands or in federally subsidized low-rent housing projects. Over 1,600

local educational agencies enrolling over

17,000,000 children are provided assistance

under the Impact Aid program.

(3) The Impact Aid program is one of the few

Federal education programs where funds are

sent directly to the school district. Such funds

go directly into the general fund and may be

used as the local educational agency decides.

(4) The Impact Aid program covers less than

half of what it costs to educate each federally

connected student in some school districts, requiring local school districts or States to provide

the remainder.

(5) Added to the burden described in paragraph (4) is the fact that some States do not rely

upon an income tax for State funding of education. In these cases, the loss of property tax

revenue makes State and local education funding even more difficult to obtain.

(6) Given the serious budget constraints facing

State and local governments it is critical that

the Federal Government continue to fulfill its

responsibility to the federally impacted school

districts in our Nation’s States.

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

the Senate that in the assumptions for the overall accounts it is assumed that the Federal Government has a financial responsibility to schools

in our Nation’s communities which are adversely affected by Federal activities and that

funding for such responsibilities should not be

reduced or eliminated.

SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO ELIMINATE

THE EARNINGS PENALTY.

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this

resolution include that the increased revenues

resulting from the revision of the expatriate tax

loophole should be used to eliminate the earnings penalty imposed on low and middle income

senior citizens receiving social security.

SEC. 320. STUDENT LOAN CUTS.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) in the 20th century, educational increases

in the workforce accounted for 30 percent of the

growth in our Nation’s wealth, and advances in

knowledge accounted for 55 percent of such

growth;

(2) the Federal Government provides 75 percent of all college financial aid;

(3) the Federal student loan program was created to make college accessible and affordable

for the middle class;

(4) increased fees and interest costs discourage

college participation by making higher education more expensive, and more of a risk, for

students and their families;

(5) full-time students already work an average

of 25 hours per week, taking time away from

their studies; and

(6) student indebtedness is already increasing

rapidly, and any reduction of the in-school interest subsidy will increase the indebtedness

burden on students and families.

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

the Senate that the assumptions underlying the

functional totals in this resolution assume the

Labor and Human Resources Committee, in

seeking to achieve mandatory savings, should

do their best to not increase the cost of borrowing for students participating in the Robert T.

Stafford Federal Student Loan Program.

SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE

NUTRITIONAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) Federal nutrition programs, such as the

school lunch program, the school breakfast program, the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (referred

to in this section as ‘‘WIC’’), the child and adult

care food program, and others, are important to

the health and well-being of children;

(2) participation in Federal nutrition programs is voluntary on the part of States, and

the programs are administered and operated by

every State;

(3) a major factor that led to the creation of

the school lunch program was that a number of

the recruits for the United States armed forces

in World War II failed physical examinations

due to problems related to inadequate nutrition;

(4)(A) WIC has proven to be extremely valuable in promoting the health of newborn babies

and children; and

(B) each dollar invested in the prenatal component of WIC has been shown to save up to

$3.50 in medicaid costs related to medical problems that arise in the first 90 days after the

birth of an infant;

(5) the requirement that infant formula be

purchased under a competitive bidding system

under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of

1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) saved $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1994 and enabled States to allow

1,600,000 women, infants, and children to participate in WIC at no additional cost to taxpayers; and

(6) a balanced Federal budget will provide

economic benefits to children alive today and to

future generations of Americans.

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

the Senate that the assumptions underlying the

functional totals in this resolution include the

assumptions that—

(1) schools should continue to serve lunches

that meet minimum nutritional requirements

based on tested nutritional research;

(2) the content of WIC food packages for infants, children, and pregnant and postpartum

women should continue to be based on scientific

evidence;

(3) the competitive bidding system for infant

formula under section 17 of the Child Nutrition

Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) should be maintained;

(4) foods of minimum nutritional value should

not be sold in competition with school lunches

in the school cafeterias during lunch hours;

(5) some reductions in nutrition program

spending can be made without compromising the

nutritional well-being of program recipients;

(6) in complying with the reconciliation instructions in section 6 of this resolution, the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate should take this section into

account; and

(7) Congress should continue to move toward

fully funding the WIC program.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MAINTAINING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement

officers provide essential services that preserve

and protect our freedoms and security;

(2) law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and support;

(3) law enforcement officers and agencies are

under increasing attacks, both to their physical

safety and to their reputations;

(4) on April 7, 1995, the Senate passed S.J.

Res. 32 in which the Senate recognizes the debt

of gratitude the Nation owes to the men and

women who daily serve the American people as

law enforcement officers and the integrity, honesty, dedication, and sacrifice of our Federal,

State, and local law enforcement officers;

(5) the Nation’s sense of domestic tranquility

has been shaken by explosions at the World

Trade Center in New York and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and by the fear

of violent crime in our cities, towns, and rural

areas across the Nation;

(6) Federal, State, and local law enforcement

efforts need increased financial commitment

from the Federal Government and not the reduction of such commitment to law enforcement if

law enforcement officers are to carry out their

efforts to combat violent crime; and

(7) on April 5, 1995, and May 18, 1995, the

House of Representatives has nonetheless voted

to reduce $5,000,000,000 from the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund in order to provide for

tax cuts in both H. R. 1215 and H. Con. Res. 67.

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

the Senate that the assumptions underlying the

functional totals in this resolution assume that

the Federal Government’s commitment to fund

Federal law enforcement programs and programs to assist State and local efforts should be

maintained and funding for the Violent Crime

Reduction Trust Fund should not be reduced by

$5,000,000,000 as the bill and resolution passed

by the House of Representatives would require.

SEC. 323. NEED TO ENACT LONG TERM HEALTH

CARE REFORM.

It is the sense of the Senate that the One

Hundred Fourth Congress should enact fundamental long-term health care reform that emphasizes cost-effective, consumer oriented, and

consumer-directed home and community-based

care that builds upon existing family supports

and achieves deficit reduction by helping elderly

and disabled individuals remain in their own

homes and communities.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING

MANDATORY MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

UNDER FUNCTION 270: ENERGY.

It is the sense of the Senate that within the

mandatory major assumptions under budget

function 270, none of the power marketing administrations within the 48 contiguous States

will be sold, and any savings that were assumed

would be realized from the sale of those power

marketing administrations will be realized

through cost reductions in other programs within the Department of Energy.

SEC. 325. DEFENSE OVERHEAD.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the major discretionary assumptions in this

concurrent budget resolution include 15 percent
May 26, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7647

reduction in overhead for programs of

nondefense agencies that remain funded in the

budget and whose funding is not interconnected

with receipts dedicated to a program;

(2) the Committee Report (104–82) on this concurrent budget resolution states that ‘‘this assumption would not reduce funding for the programmatic activities of agencies.’’.

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

the Senate that the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations should make a reduction of at least three percent in overhead for fiscal year 1996 programs of defense agencies, and

should do so in a manner so as not to reduce

funding for the programmatic activities of these

agencies.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—

(1) the essential air service program of the Department of Transportation under subchapter II

of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code—

(A) provides essential airline access to isolated

rural communities across the United States;

(B) is necessary for the economic growth and

development of rural communities;

(C) connects small rural communities to the

national air transportation system of the United

States;

(D) is a critical component of the national

transportation system of the United States; and

(E) provides air service to 108 communities in

30 States; and

(2) the National Commission to Ensure a

Strong Competitive Airline Industry established

under section 204 of the Airport and Airway

Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 recommended

maintaining the essential air service program

with a sufficient level of funding to continue to

provide air service to small communities.

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

the Senate that the essential air service program

of the Department of Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United

States Code, should receive, to the maximum extent possible, a sufficient level of funding to

continue to provide air service to small rural

communities that qualify for assistance under

the program.

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE

PRIORITY THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN

TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION

ACTIVITIES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

(1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (106 Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 93

to 3 and was signed into law by President Bush

in 1992, amended section 6 of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12005) to direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a 5-year

program to commercialize renewable energy and

energy efficiency technologies;

(2) poll after poll shows that the American

people overwhelmingly believe that renewable

energy and energy efficiency technologies

should be the highest priority of Federal research, development, and demonstration activities;

(3) renewable technologies (such as wind,

photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, and

biomass technology) have made significant

progress toward increased reliability and decreased cost;

(4) energy efficient technologies in the building, industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved more than 3 trillion dollars for

industries, consumers, and the Federal Government over the past 20 years while creating jobs,

improving the competitiveness of the economy,

making housing more affordable, and reducing

the emissions of environmentally damaging pollutants;

(5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency

technology programs feature private sector cost

shares that are among the highest of Federal

energy research and development programs;

(6) according to the Energy Information Administration, the United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40 percent,

of the $116,000,000,000 total United States merchandise deficit in 1993; and

(7) renewable energy and energy efficiency

technologies represent potential inroads for

American companies into export markets for energy products and services estimated at least

$225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years.

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

Senate that the assumptions underlying the

functional totals in this resolution include the

assumption that renewable energy and energy

efficiency technology research, development,

and demonstration activities should be given

priority among the Federal energy research programs.

SEC. 328. FOREIGN SALES CORPORATIONS INCOME EXCLUSION.

The assumption underlying the functional totals include that it is the sense of the Senate

that cuts in student loan benefits should be

minimized, and that the current exclusion of income of Foreign Sales Corporations should be

eliminated.

Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. BOND pertaining

to the introduction of S. 872 are located

in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements

on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.’’)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Missouri is recognized.

MR. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of Senate

Joint Resolution 36 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

BOND). The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

LES ASPIN: A PUBLIC SERVANT

AND A FRIEND

fMr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last

Sunday the Nation lost one of its foremost leaders on military and defense

policies, and I lost a good friend, with

the passing of Les Aspin.

I came to know and appreciate Les

Aspin when we served together in the

House of Representatives, and he and

Junket, his huge, hairy sheep dog,

shared an office down the hall from me

in the Cannon House Office Building.

I came to know and appreciate Les as

a good and decent man who was never

too busy to stop and exchange a joke

with you.

I also came to admire and respect

him as a dedicated, selfless public servant. At the time of his death, he had

spent more than 3 decades in public

service as a Member of the House of

Representatives, as chairman of the

House Armed Services Committee, as a

chief adviser on military policy to the

Clinton-Gore campaign, as Secretary of

Defense, and as the head of the Foreign

Intelligence Advisory Board.

No person could have been better prepared for these important and demanding positions. Les Aspin brought to

them the best of education, including

an undergraduate degree from Yale, a

master’s degree from Oxford University, and a Ph.D. in economics from

MIT.

And he had the best of training, as he

had worked on the staffs of Senator

William Proxmire, Dr. Walter Heller

when he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

Not only was Les well educated and

well versed in public policy, he was a

person who cared deeply for his country and its citizens.

Les Aspin may well be most remembered for his brief, but stormy tenure

as the Secretary of Defense. To those

who were surprised by his controversial

tenure in this position, I can only say

that I am surprised that they were surprised.

Les Aspin has always been controversial—he was never afraid to take a position—at times, a lonely, unpopular

decision. He was elected to Congress as

a critic of the Vietnam war, but backed

President Reagan’s military buildup

and the decision to go to war against

Iraq.

As chairman of the House Armed

Services Committee, Les Aspin was a

one-man think tank, as he always

seemed on the cutting edge of defense

issues. An AP reporter dubbed him a

‘‘strategic intellectual.’’ He was as

comfortable in dealing with foreign

policy and defense issues as he was in

reviewing Pentagon procurement practices. And he had that incredible and

marvelous ability to present the most

complicated and difficult public policy

issues in simple and easily understood

ways.

Congressman Aspin was a logical

choice to reshape the Pentagon and

U.S. military in the post-cold-war era.

When President-elect Clinton nominated him for the position of Secretary

of Defense, the Washington Post noted

that it seemed that Mr. Aspin had

‘‘spent most of his professional life preparing for the defense secretary’s job.’’

The Washington Times remarked that

he had ‘‘devoted nearly every waking

hour as a student, professional, and

politician to thinking about weapons

and soldiers.’’

Everyone knew that the adjustments

to the post-Soviet world would be difficult and controversial—and they

were. Secretary Aspin did not shrink

from these challenges. He welcomed

them. His time as head of the Pentagon

was a time of shifting international

commitments, and new challenges

posed by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This included the painful