In the Senate of the United States,
March 25 (legislative day, February 22), 1994.
Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Rep-
resentatives (H. Con. Res. 218) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolu-
tion setting forth the congressional budget for the United
States Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999’’ 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 1995.
(a) DECLARATION.—The Congress determines and de-
clares that this resolution is the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 1995, including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and
1999, as required by section 301 of the Congressional Budg-
et 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 1995.
TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 2. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 3. Debt increase as a measure of deficit.
Sec. 4. Display of Federal Retirement Trust Fund balances.
Sec. 5. Social Security.
Sec. 6. Major functional categories.
H CON RES 218 EAS
TITLE II—BUDGETARY PROCEDURES
Sec. 21. Sale of Government assets.
Sec. 22. Social security fire wall point of order in the Senate.
Sec. 23. Enforcing pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 24. Deficit-neutral reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 25. Enforcement procedures.
Sec. 26. Exercise of rule-making powers.
TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS
Sec. 31. Sense of the Congress regarding the budgetary accounting of health care
reform.
Sec. 32. Sense of the Congress on the costs of illegal immigration.
Sec. 33. Sense of the Congress regarding baselines.
Sec. 34. Sense of the Congress on economic assumptions.
Sec. 35. Sense of the Congress regarding unfunded Federal mandates.
Sec. 36. Closing of loopholes in foreign tax provisions.
Sec. 37. Sense of the Senate regarding tax expenditures.
Sec. 38. Sense of the Congress regarding health service delivery and water infra-
structure in the Indian Health Service.
Sec. 39. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration.
Sec. 40. Sense of the Senate regarding a balanced budget and the Spending Re-
duction Commission.
Sec. 41. Minimum allocation program.
Sec. 42. Sense of Senate on payments to United Nations of United States arrear-
ages in contributions for peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 43. Policy in Eastern and Central Europe.
Sec. 44. Sense of the Senate regarding Federal courthouse construction.
Sec. 45. Sense of the congress regarding Federal law enforcement personnel.
Sec. 46. Sense of Senate that taxes not be increased because taxpayers are mar-
ried.
Sec. 47. Sense of the Senate regarding certain Department of Energy reductions-
in-force.
Sec. 48. Sense of the Congress regarding minerals management.
Sec. 49. Sense of Senate regarding diesel fuel dyeing regulations.
Sec. 50. Sense of the Senate regarding equitable distribution of reductions in dis-
cretionary spending.
Sec. 51. Star Wars (ballistic missile defense).
Sec. 52. Control growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
Sec. 53. Sense of the Congress on shifting the allocation of anti-drug funds from
international anti-drug programs to drug treatment and preven-
tion programs.
Sec. 54. Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative.
Sec. 55. Sense of the Senate on controlling non-social security mandatory spend-
ing.
TITLE I—LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the
fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.—(A) For purposes of
comparison with the maximum deficit amount under
sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974 and for purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution—
(i) The recommended levels of Federal reve-
nues are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $977,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $1,031,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,079,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,190,200,000,000.
(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate
levels of Federal revenues should be increased are
as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $0.
Fiscal year 1996: $0.
Fiscal year 1997: $0.
Fiscal year 1998: $0.
Fiscal year 1999: $0.
(iii) The amounts for Federal Insurance
Contributions Act revenues for hospital insur-
ance within the recommended levels of Federal
revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $117,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements
of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund)—
(i) The recommended levels of Federal reve-
nues are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $877,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $924,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $967,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,018,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,066,500,000,000.
(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate
levels of Federal revenues should be increased are
as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $0.
Fiscal year 1996: $0.
Fiscal year 1997: $0.
Fiscal year 1998: $0.
Fiscal year 1999: $0.
(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.—(A) For purposes
of comparison with the maximum deficit amount
under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of the Congressional
H CON RES 218 EAS
Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of the enforce-
ment of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total
new budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $1,242,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $1,303,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,368,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,437,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,509,600,000,000.
(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements
of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund), the appro-
priate levels of total new budget authority are as fol-
lows:
Fiscal year 1995: $1,149,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $1,202,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,257,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,315,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,372,300,000,000.
(3) BUDGET
OUTLAYS.—(A) For purposes of
comparison with the maximum deficit amount under
sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of the Congressional Budg-
et Act of 1974 and for purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $1,216,300,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
Fiscal year 1996: $1,283,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,352,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,412,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,485,100,000,000.
(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements
of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund), the appro-
priate levels of total budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $1,124,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $1,183,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,241,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,290,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,349,600,000,000.
(4) DEFICITS.—(A) For purposes of comparison
with the maximum deficit amount under sections
601(a)(1) and 606 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and for purposes of the enforcement of this reso-
lution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $238,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $252,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $272,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $275,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $294,900,000,000.
(B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act (excluding the receipts and disbursements
H CON RES 218 EAS
of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund), the amounts
of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $246,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $258,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $274,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $272,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $283,100,000,000.
(5) PUBLIC DEBT.—The appropriate levels of the
public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $4,963,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $5,278,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $5,611,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $5,945,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $6,289,700,000,000.
(6) DIRECT
LOAN
OBLIGATIONS.—The appro-
priate levels of total new direct loan obligations are
as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $26,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $32,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $33,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $35,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $37,800,000,000.
(7) 
PRIMARY
LOAN
GUARANTEE
COMMIT-
MENTS.—The appropriate levels of new primary loan
guarantee commitments are as follows:
H CON RES 218 EAS
Fiscal year 1995: $199,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $174,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $164,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $164,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $163,500,000,000.
SEC. 3. DEBT INCREASE AS A MEASURE OF DEFICIT.
The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject
to limitation are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $306,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $315,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $332,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $334,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $344,200,000,000.
SEC. 4. DISPLAY OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT TRUST FUND
BALANCES.
The balances of the Federal retirement trust funds are
as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $1,161,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $1,275,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $1,396,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $1,524,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $1,651,300,000,000.
SEC. 5. SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUES.—For purposes of
Senate enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Con-
H CON RES 218 EAS
gressional 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 1995: $360,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $379,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $399,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $419,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $439,800,000,000.
(b) SOCIAL SECURITY OUTLAYS.—For purposes of
Senate enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Con-
gressional 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 1995: $287,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $301,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $312,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $324,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $337,000,000,000.
SEC. 6. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appro-
priate levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new
direct loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee
H CON RES 218 EAS
commitments for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 for each
major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$263,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$255,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$252,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $256,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$258,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$265,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$19,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$3,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $18,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,200,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,800,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $18,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,600,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $18,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $18,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $16,500,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology
(250):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$21,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$22,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$22,100,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$22,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$21,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$12,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,780,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$10,100,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$12,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$9,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$9,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$9,800,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $7,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$9,900,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $7,400,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$7,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$8,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,800,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $117,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$10,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$3,000,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $103,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$3,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$3,100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $95,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$3,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $96,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$3,400,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $99,500,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$42,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $500,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$41,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$43,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$44,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$44,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(9) Community and Regional Development
(450):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $3,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $3,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $3,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $3,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $3,600,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and So-
cial Services (500):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$57,920,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,648,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$5,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $19,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$58,200,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, $55,671,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $14,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$59,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,199,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$13,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $13,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$61,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,602,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$15,100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $12,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$63,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,200,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$16,800,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $11,200,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$124,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,730,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$136,703,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $135,730,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $300,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$151,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,895,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$166,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $165,453,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$184,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $182,556,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$162,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$180,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$198,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$217,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$242,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(13) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Fund:
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$56,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$65,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$73,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$81,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$92,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$220,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $220,705,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$234,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $229,330,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$249,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,828,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$261,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $253,234,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$272,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,440,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$8,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$37,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $32,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$37,600,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,300,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $27,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$38,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $25,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$38,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $25,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$39,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $25,300,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$18,823,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,255,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$21,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,406,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$22,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,068,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$23,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,491,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$24,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,493,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$14,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$247,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$267,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$282,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(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 com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$314,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $314,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(20) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act, Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$257,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$277,800,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, $277,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$293,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$308,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $308,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$324,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $324,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(21) The corresponding levels of gross interest on
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $311,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $331,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $347,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $364,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $383,300,000,000.
(22) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$11,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$13,118,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$8,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$3,938,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$9,288,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, ¥$6,492,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$12,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$11,982,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$24,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$15,589,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$36,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$36,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$30,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$30,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$30,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$30,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(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 com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$31,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$31,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(24) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Se-
curity Act, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$33,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$33,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$27,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$27,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$27,600,000,000.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) Outlays, ¥$27,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$28,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$28,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$28,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$28,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
TITLE II—BUDGETARY
PROCEDURES
SEC. 21. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.
(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
Congress that—
(1) from time to time the United States Govern-
ment should sell assets; and
H CON RES 218 EAS
(2) the amounts realized from such asset sales
will not recur on an annual basis and do not reduce
the demand for credit.
(b) FINDING.—The Congress finds that every budget
resolution since that for fiscal year 1988 has included lan-
guage prohibiting counting in the budget process the
amounts realized from asset sales (other than loan assets).
(c) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—For purposes of points
of order under this concurrent resolution and the Congres-
sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the
amounts realized from sales of assets (other than loan as-
sets) shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget
authority, outlays, or revenues.
(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ‘‘sale of an asset’’ shall have the
same meaning as under section 250(c)(21) of the Bal-
anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990); and
(2) the term shall not include asset sales man-
dated by law before September 18, 1987, and routine,
ongoing asset sales at levels consistent with agency
operations in fiscal year 1986.
(e) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (d) of this sec-
tion shall expire September 30, 1998.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 8 of House
Concurrent Resolution 64 (103d Congress), section 8 of
House Concurrent Resolution 287 (102d Congress), section
7 of House Concurrent Resolution 121 (102d Congress), sec-
tion 5 of House Concurrent Resolution 310 (101st Con-
gress), section 6 of House Concurrent Resolution 106 (101st
Congress), section 4 of House Concurrent Resolution 268
(100th Congress), and sections 7 and 8 of House Concurrent
Resolution 93 (100th Congress) are repealed.
SEC. 22. SOCIAL SECURITY FIRE WALL POINT OF ORDER IN
THE SENATE.
(a) FINDING.—The Senate finds that the concurrent
resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 1993 and 1994
have prohibited subsequent concurrent resolutions on the
budget from decreasing the balances of the social security
trust fund.
(b) APPLICATION OF SECTION 301(i).—Notwithstand-
ing any other rule of the Senate, in the Senate, the point
of order established under section 301(i) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 shall apply to any concurrent
resolution on the budget for any fiscal year (as reported
and as amended), amendments thereto, or any conference
report thereon.
(c) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section 10(b) of
House Concurrent Resolution 64 (103d Congress) and sec-
H CON RES 218 EAS
tion 12(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 287 (102d Con-
gress) are repealed.
SEC. 23. ENFORCING PAY-AS-YOU-GO.
(a) PURPOSE.—The Senate declares that it is essential
to—
(1) ensure continued compliance with the deficit
reduction embodied in the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-
ation Act of 1993; and
(2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement
system.
(b) FINDING.—The Senate finds that section 12(c) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994
created a point of order prohibiting legislation that would
increase the deficit through fiscal year 2003.
(c) ENFORCEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider any direct spending or receipts leg-
islation (including any such bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report) that
would—
(A) increase the deficit for the first fiscal
year covered by the most recently adopted con-
current resolution on the budget;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(B) increase the deficit for the period of the
5 fiscal years covered by the most recently adopt-
ed concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(C) increase the deficit for the period of the
5 fiscal years following the first 5 years covered
by the most recently adopted concurrent resolu-
tion on the budget;
when taken individually (as a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report, as the case
may be), and when taken together with all direct
spending and receipts legislation enacted after the
date of enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-
ation Act of 1993.
(2) DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS LEGISLA-
TION.—For purposes of this subsection, direct spend-
ing and receipts legislation shall—
(A) exclude full funding of, and continu-
ation of, the deposit insurance guarantee com-
mitment in effect on the date of enactment of the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990;
(B) exclude emergency provisions so des-
ignated under section 252(e) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(C) include the estimated amount of savings
in direct spending programs applicable to that
fiscal year resulting from the prior year’s seques-
tration under the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency 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
(D) except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, include all direct spending legislation
as that term is defined in section 250(c)(8) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
(d) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or sus-
pended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(e) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the deci-
sions 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.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(f) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For pur-
poses of this section, the levels of new budget authority, out-
lays, and receipts for a fiscal year shall be determined on
the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget
of the Senate.
(g) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section 12(c) of
House Concurrent Resolution 64 (103d Congress) is
repealed.
(h) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Notwithstanding sec-
tion 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 Budg-
et 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 a rule of the Senate through
(but no later than) September 30, 1998.
(i) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (f) of this sec-
tion shall expire September 30, 1998.
SEC. 24. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.
(a) INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE WELL-BEING OF
FAMILIES THROUGH WELFARE OR OTHER REFORMS, TO
PROVIDE FOR SERVICES TO SUPPORT OR PROTECT CHIL-
H CON RES 218 EAS
DREN, OR TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH, NUTRITION, OR CARE
OF CHILDREN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for legislation
to improve the well-being of families through welfare
or other reforms (including promoting self-sufficiency
through improvements in job training or employment
programs), to provide for services to support or pro-
tect children (including assuring increased parental
support for children through improvements in the
child support enforcement program), or to improve
the health, nutrition, or care of children, within such
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 resolu-
tion on the budget, the enactment of such legislation
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous
or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in
this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(b) INITIATIVES TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRAIN-
ING OR JOB SEARCH ASSISTANCE OR TO REFORM UNEM-
PLOYMENT COMPENSATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees for
legislation that increases funding to provide com-
H CON RES 218 EAS
prehensive training or job search assistance (includ-
ing reemployment or job training programs or dis-
located worker programs), or to reform unemployment
compensation, or to provide for other related pro-
grams, within such 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 enact-
ment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue
of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. These revised allocations, functional levels,
H CON RES 218 EAS
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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(c) CONTINUING IMPROVEMENTS IN ONGOING HEALTH
CARE PROGRAMS OR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE RE-
FORM.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees for
legislation that increases funding to make continuing
improvements in ongoing health care programs, to
provide for comprehensive health care reform, to con-
trol health care costs, or to accomplish other health
care reforms within such a committee’s jurisdiction if
such a committee or the committee of conference on
such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the ex-
tent that the costs of such legislation are not included
in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enact-
ment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue
H CON RES 218 EAS
of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(4) ADJUSTMENTS
FOR
AMENDMENTS.—(A) If
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget makes
an adjustment for legislation pursuant to this sub-
section, upon the offering of an amendment to such
legislation, the Chairman shall 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 if
the enactment of such legislation (as proposed to be
amended) will not increase (by virtue of either con-
temporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction)
the deficit in this resolution for—
(i) fiscal year 1995; or
(ii) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(B) 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 res-
olution on the budget.
(C) The appropriate committee may report ap-
propriately revised allocations pursuant to sections
302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to carry out this subsection.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(d) INITIATIVES TO PRESERVE AND REBUILD THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME INDUSTRY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees for di-
rect spending legislation that increases funding to
preserve and rebuild the United States maritime
industry within such a committee’s jurisdiction if
such a committee or the committee of conference on
such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the ex-
tent that the costs of such legislation are not included
in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enact-
ment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue
of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; and
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
H CON RES 218 EAS
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. Such 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately
revised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(e) INITIATIVES TO REFORM THE FINANCING OF FED-
ERAL ELECTIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees for di-
rect spending legislation that increases funding to re-
form the financing of Federal elections within such 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 resolu-
tion on the budget, the enactment of such legislation
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous
or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in
this resolution for—
H CON RES 218 EAS
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(f) TRADE-RELATED LEGISLATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
H CON RES 218 EAS
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for trade-relat-
ed legislation (including legislation to implement the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade or to extend the Generalized System of
Preferences) within such a committee’s jurisdiction if
such a committee or the committee of conference on
such legislation reports such legislation, if, to the ex-
tent that the costs of such legislation are not included
in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the enact-
ment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue
of either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit
reduction) the deficit in this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. These revised allocations, functional levels,
H CON RES 218 EAS
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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(g) REFORMS RELATING TO THE PENSION BENEFIT
GUARANTY CORPORATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for reforms re-
lating to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(including legislation to improve the funding of gov-
ernment-insured pension plans, to protect plan par-
ticipants, or to limit growth in exposure of the Pen-
sion Benefit Guaranty Corporation) or other em-
ployee benefit-related legislation within such a com-
mittee’s jurisdiction if such a committee or the com-
mittee of conference on such legislation reports such
legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of such legis-
lation are not included in this concurrent resolution
on the budget, the enactment of such legislation will
H CON RES 218 EAS
not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or
previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this
resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(h) REFORMS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON
DOMESTIC SERVICES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for reforms re-
lating to providing for simplified collection of em-
ployment taxes on domestic services within such 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 resolu-
tion on the budget, the enactment of such legislation
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous
or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in
this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
H CON RES 218 EAS
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(i) INITIATIVES TO REFORM THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABIL-
ITY ACT OF 1980.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees for di-
rect spending legislation that increases funding to re-
form the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 within such
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 resolu-
tion on the budget, the enactment of such legislation
H CON RES 218 EAS
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous
or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in
this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(j) REFORMS TO CONSOLIDATE THE SUPERVISION OF
DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS INSURED UNDER THE FED-
ERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for reforms to
consolidate the supervision of depository institutions
insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
within such a committee’s jurisdiction if such a com-
mittee or the committee of conference on such legisla-
tion reports such legislation, if, to the extent that the
costs of such legislation are not included in this con-
current resolution on the budget, the enactment of
such legislation will not increase (by virtue of either
contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduc-
tion) the deficit in this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
H CON RES 218 EAS
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
(k) INITIATIVES TO PRESERVE ENERGY SECURITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee or committees and
the revenue aggregates may be reduced for initiatives
to preserve United States energy security within such
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 resolu-
tion on the budget, the enactment of such legislation
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous
H CON RES 218 EAS
or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in
this resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through
1999.
(2) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the reporting
of legislation pursuant to paragraph (1), 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 Sen-
ate may file with the Senate appropriately revised al-
locations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised func-
tional levels and aggregates to carry out this sub-
section. 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.
(3) REPORTING
REVISED
ALLOCATIONS.—The
appropriate committee may report appropriately re-
vised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and
602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this subsection.
H CON RES 218 EAS
SEC. 25. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.
(a) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.—
(1) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, for the
discretionary category, for the purposes of congres-
sional enforcement of this resolution, reduce the dis-
cretionary spending limit in section 601 of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1974 by the following
amounts—
(A) with respect to fiscal year 1996,
$4,200,000,000 
in 
budget 
authority 
and
$5,400,000,000 in outlays;
(B) with respect to fiscal year 1997,
$4,800,000,000 
in 
budget 
authority 
and
$5,600,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) with respect to fiscal year 1998,
$8,700,000,000 
in 
budget 
authority 
and
$5,300,000,000 in outlays.
(2) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—(A) Ex-
cept as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall not be
in order in the Senate to consider any concurrent res-
olution on the budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, or
1998 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on
such a resolution) that would exceed any of the discre-
tionary spending limits in this section.
(B) This subsection shall not apply if a declara-
tion of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint
H CON RES 218 EAS
resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
has been enacted.
(b) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or sus-
pended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the deci-
sions 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.
(d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For pur-
poses of this section, the levels of new budget authority, out-
lays, 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 or the Committee
on the Budget of the House of Representatives, as the case
may be.
SEC. 26. EXERCISE OF RULE-MAKING POWERS.
The Congress adopts the provisions of this title—
H CON RES 218 EAS
(1) as an exercise of the rule-making power of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, respec-
tively, and as such they shall be considered as part
of the rules of each House, or of that House to which
they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede
other rules only to the extent that they are inconsist-
ent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional
right of either House to change those rules (so far as
they relate to that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of that House.
TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS
PROVISIONS
SEC. 31. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE BUD-
GETARY 
ACCOUNTING 
OF 
HEALTH 
CARE
REFORM.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) the Congress should measure the costs and
benefits of all health care reform legislation against a
uniform set of economic and technical assumptions;
(2) before enacting major changes in the health
care system, the Congress should have available to it
reliable estimates of the costs of competing plans pre-
pared in a comparable manner;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(3) Congress should use Congressional Budget
Office estimates in accounting for the costs and bene-
fits of health care reform legislation; and
(4) all financial transactions associated with
Federal health care reform legislation mandating em-
ployer payments for health care coverage should be
treated as part of the Federal budget, including em-
ployer mandated payments to entities (which should
be treated as Government receipts) and payments
made by the entities pursuant to Federal law (which
should be treated as outlays), for all purposes under
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Bal-
anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
SEC. 32. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE COSTS OF ILLE-
GAL IMMIGRATION.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the Federal Government is solely responsible
for setting and enforcing national immigration pol-
icy;
(2) the Federal Government has not adequately
enforced immigration laws;
(3) this weak enforcement has imposed financial
costs on State and local governments;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(4) States must incur costs for incarcerating un-
documented persons convicted of State and local
crimes, educating undocumented children, providing
emergency medical services to undocumented persons,
and providing services incidental to admission of ref-
ugees under the Refugee Admissions and Resettlement
Program; and
(5) the Federal Government has an obligation to
reimburse State and local governments for costs re-
sulting from the costs described in paragraph (4).
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress
that, in setting forth the budget authority and outlay
amounts in this resolution, funding should be provided to
reimburse State and local governments for the costs associ-
ated with—
(1) elementary and secondary education for un-
documented children;
(2) emergency medical assistance to undocu-
mented persons;
(3) incarceration and parole of criminal aliens;
and
(4) services incidental to admission of refugees
under the Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Pro-
gram.
H CON RES 218 EAS
SEC. 33. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of
Federal revenues and spending if policies remain un-
changed;
(2) baseline budgeting has given rise to the prac-
tice of calculating policy changes from an inflated
spending level; and
(3) the baseline concept has been misused to por-
tray policies that would simply slow down the in-
crease in spending as spending reductions.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Con-
gress that—
(1) the President should submit a budget that
compares proposed spending levels for the budget year
with the current year; and
(2) the starting point for deliberations on a
budget resolution should be the current year.
SEC. 34. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON ECONOMIC ASSUMP-
TIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) economic assumptions play a significant role
in projecting Federal budget expenditures and reve-
nues;
(2) over the past decade and one-half, the eco-
nomic assumptions used by both the Office of Manage-
H CON RES 218 EAS
ment and Budget and by the Congressional Budget
Office have been less accurate than the Blue Chip pro-
jections;
(3) future economic assumptions utilized for
budget projection purposes should use the latest Blue
Chip projections for economic assumptions and
quoted public market rates when relevant for project-
ing interest rates; and
(4) in the event the Office of Management and
Budget or the Congressional Budget Office concludes
that using the Blue Chip indicators or market rates
are inaccurate, they should present their budget pro-
jections using both their own and Blue Chip and
market assumptions, along with an explanation of
why they find the latter to be unacceptable.
SEC. 35. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED
FEDERAL MANDATES.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) the Federal Government should not shift the
costs of administering Federal programs to State and
local governments;
(2) the Federal Government’s share of entitle-
ment programs should not be capped or otherwise de-
creased without providing States authority to amend
H CON RES 218 EAS
their financial or programmatic responsibilities to
continue meeting the mandated service;
(3) the Federal Government should not impose
excessive mandates and regulations that increase costs
for the private sector, hindering economic growth and
employment opportunities; and
(4) Congress should develop a mechanism to en-
sure that costs of mandates are considered during
agencies’ development of regulations and congres-
sional deliberations on legislation.
SEC. 36. CLOSING OF LOOPHOLES IN FOREIGN TAX PROVI-
SIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) foreign-controlled corporations doing business
in the United States do not pay their fair share of
taxes;
(2) up to 72 percent of foreign-controlled cor-
porations doing business in the United States pay no
Federal income tax;
(3) the Internal Revenue Service has limited its
own ability to enforce Federal tax laws against for-
eign-controlled corporations, to the detriment of do-
mestic taxpayers;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(4) the Internal Revenue Service has been using
antiquated accounting concepts to deal with sophisti-
cated multinational corporations;
(5) billions of dollars of Federal revenues are lost
annually due to the inability of the Internal Revenue
Service to enforce the ‘‘arm’s length’’ transaction
rule—not even counting the costs of bureaucracy and
litigation; and
(6) the Federal income tax laws encourage do-
mestic taxpayers to relocate abroad by granting them
deferral of United States taxes on income earned
abroad.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that deficit reduction should be achieved, in part, by
ending loopholes and enforcement breakdowns that now en-
able foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United
States to pay no taxes and that subsidize the flight of do-
mestic businesses and jobs out of the United States, includ-
ing—
(1) a more streamlined and efficient method of
enforcing Federal tax laws involving multinational
corporations, especially those based abroad, in par-
ticular, the use of a formula approach by the Treas-
ury Department where the ‘‘arm’s length’’ transaction
rule does not work; and
H CON RES 218 EAS
(2) a repeal of tax subsidies for domestic busi-
nesses that move jobs to tax havens abroad and then
ship their products back into the United States.
SEC. 37. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDI-
TURES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) continuing budget deficits and the accumula-
tion of Federal debt have a detrimental impact on the
Nation’s long-term economic growth prospects;
(2) in the absence of further fiscal restraint, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Fed-
eral deficit will increase to $365,000,000,000 by 2004
and the national debt held by the public will grow to
approximately $6,000,000,000,000;
(3) tax expenditures are growing significantly;
and
(4) in some instances, tax expenditures may
have the same effect as direct Federal spending and
should be subject to the same level of budgetary re-
view.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that—
(1) the Congress should consider targets for the
growth in tax expenditures similar to the targets for
the growth of mandatory spending;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(2) such targets should be specified in any rec-
onciliation instructions included in a budget resolu-
tion; and
(3) such targets should be enforceable separately
from any revenue targets included in the reconcili-
ation instructions.
SEC. 38. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING HEALTH
SERVICE DELIVERY AND WATER INFRASTRUC-
TURE IN THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) sufficient funding should be provided to the
Indian Health Service to ensure that Indian Health
Service hospitals and outpatient facilities in existence
on the date of enactment of this resolution, and In-
dian Health Service hospitals and outpatient facili-
ties scheduled to open during fiscal years 1994, 1995,
and 1996, are fully staffed with the appropriate num-
ber of health care professionals needed to meet the
health and medical needs of the American Indians
and Alaska Natives who depend on the Indian Health
Service for health care; and
(2) sufficient funding should be provided to the
Indian Health Service to ensure that the Indian
Health Service is capable of meeting basic public
health and safety and sanitation requirements on In-
H CON RES 218 EAS
dian lands through timely and proper water infra-
structure construction and upgrades.
SEC. 39. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NA-
TIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINIS-
TRATION.
It is the sense of the Senate that the budget authority
and outlay figures for function 250 in this resolution do
not assume any amounts for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration for any fiscal year from 1995
through 1999 in excess of the amounts proposed by the
President for such fiscal year.
SEC. 40. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A BALANCED
BUDGET AND THE SPENDING REDUCTION
COMMISSION.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) The Congressional Budget Office has affirmed
that reductions in outlays of $34,000,000,000 per
year below their current baseline will result in a bal-
anced budget by the year 2000.
(2) The Spending Reduction Commission de-
scribed in S. 1191 is a proven mechanism which will
provide the necessary reductions in Federal spending
required to achieve a balanced budget.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that Federal outlays should be reduced to reflect the
H CON RES 218 EAS
aforementioned reductions from the Congressional Budget
Office Baseline and that a Spending Reduction Commission
should be created to propose annual spending cuts sufficient
to reach the yearly spending reduction targets.
SEC. 41. MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the minimum allocation program was estab-
lished in 1982 to address inequities in the funding
formula for Federal-aid highways;
(2) the minimum allocation program was de-
signed to provide the greatest degree of flexibility
practicable to States that receive funding under the
formula referred to in paragraph (1) and includes an
exemption of the apportionments from the obligation
ceiling;
(3) the minimum allocation program provides
additional flexibility by allowing a State a 4-year pe-
riod during which amounts apportioned to the State
may be obligated;
(4) the budget of the United States Government
for fiscal year 1995 submitted by the President to
Congress proposes to include minimum allocation ap-
portionments under the obligation ceiling and also
proposes to limit the authority of States to obligate
apportionments under the minimum allocation pro-
H CON RES 218 EAS
gram to 67 percent of the amount of the apportion-
ments; and
(5) States have planned transportation programs
on the basis of the provisions of the Intermodal Sur-
face Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and the
amendments made by the Act, relating to minimum
allocation that confirmed core commitments to exemp-
tion and flexibility.
(b) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
Congress that—
(1) the minimum allocation program should re-
main exempt from the obligation ceiling; and
(2) the flexibility of the minimum allocation pro-
gram should be an enduring and critical component
of the provision of Federal assistance to States for
Federal-aid highways.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:
(1) FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS.—The term ‘‘Fed-
eral-aid highways’’ has the meaning provided the
term in section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
(2) MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.—The term
‘‘minimum allocation program’’ means the program
of allocation of funding to States under section 157
of title 23, United States Code.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(3) OBLIGATION CEILING.—The term ‘‘obligation
ceiling’’ means the obligation ceiling under section
1002 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act of 1991.
SEC. 42. SENSE OF SENATE ON PAYMENT TO UNITED NA-
TIONS OF UNITED STATES ARREARAGES IN
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PEACEKEEPING ACTIVI-
TIES.
(a) SENSE
OF SENATE
ON AUTHORITY
AND OUT-
LAYS.—It is the sense of the Senate that budget authority
of $250,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 and outlays of
$170,000,000 in that fiscal year based upon funds accruing
under subsection (b) should be allocated to the committee
or committees of the Senate having jurisdiction over con-
tributions to the United Nations for peacekeeping activities
for the purposes of permitting the payment of arrearages
of the United States in commitments in fiscal year 1994
for such contributions.
(b) SENSE OF SENATE ON FUNDS.—It is the sense of
the Senate that funds should be available for the budget au-
thority of $250,000,000 and outlays of $170,000,000 re-
ferred to in subsection (a) as the result of—
(1) the reimposition by the United States of
charges on foreign governments (other than Israel and
Egypt) for the non-recurring costs of research, devel-
H CON RES 218 EAS
opment, and production of major defense equipment
licensed for commercial export to such governments;
and
(2) the recoupment by the United States from
such governments of administrative costs relating to
foreign military sales; and
(3) the elimination of all financing assistance for
such sales (other than sales to Israel and Egypt) by
the United States.
SEC. 43. POLICY IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE.
It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions un-
derlying the levels of spending set forth in this resolution
regarding the national defense (050) and international af-
fairs (150) budget categories include an assumption that
the United States will oppose through appropriate means
attempts by the Russian Federation to intimidate, use mili-
tary force or engage in economic coercion to establish a
sphere of influence over the former republics of the Soviet
Union, the Baltics, or Central and Eastern European na-
tions, consistent with provisions contained in the Freedom
Support Act and the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act
of 1994.
SEC. 44. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FEDERAL
COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
H CON RES 218 EAS
(1) the President’s fiscal year 1995 budget in-
cludes a request for 11 courthouses with a total esti-
mated cost of over $1,000,000,000;
(2) while there may be significant need for new
Federal courthouses, the need for programs that pre-
vent youth violence before children get to courthouses
is greater;
(3) there should be a moratorium for fiscal year
1995 on the construction of any new Federal court-
houses which have not already been specifically ap-
proved by Congress; and
(4) priority should be given to programs for chil-
dren and families like Head Start and grants for ma-
ternal and infant health care.
SEC. 45. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) violent crimes reported to law enforcement
continue to increase with over 1,900,000 offenses
being reported to law enforcement each year;
(2) drug dealing and the violent crime that ac-
companies it are at the heart of the Nation’s current
crime crisis;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(3) the problem of international drug trafficking
is increasing and foreign narcotics syndicates con-
tinue to make the United States their primary target;
(4) drug abuse among our Nation’s young peo-
ple, after years of decline, has recently increased;
(5) interstate criminal street gangs, which deal
in illicit narcotics and which are responsible for so
much violent crime, are spreading into cities through-
out the Nation;
(6) the Senate has passed a comprehensive anti-
crime bill which increases authorizations for Federal
and State law enforcement, increases penalties for
violent crime, and enhances Federal law enforcement’s
role in combating violent street crime;
(7) the President’s proposed budget for fiscal
year 1995 cuts the number of Drug Enforcement Ad-
ministration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Orga-
nized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, and
United States Attorney personnel;
(8) absent the President’s proposed budget cuts to
Federal law enforcement for fiscal year 1995, there
are still 431 fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA
agents today than there were in 1992 and, according
to the President’s budget, there will not be a new FBI
or DEA class until fiscal year 1996;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(9) an adequate Federal law enforcement and
Federal prosecutor presence is critical to our Nation’s
effort to respond to the crime and drug problem; and
(10) President Clinton and Attorney General
Reno have publicly stated their support for enhanced
efforts to fight violent crime and drug trafficking.
(b) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that—
(1) current levels of agent strength within the
DEA and FBI and the current number of assistant
United States Attorneys are inadequate to meet the
Federal Government’s obligations to our Nation’s law
abiding citizens; and
(2) at a minimum, the agent strength for the
FBI and DEA should be restored to end-of-fiscal year
1992 levels, and the number of Assistant United
States Attorneys should not be reduced.
SEC. 46. SENSE OF SENATE THAT TAXES NOT BE IN-
CREASED BECAUSE TAXPAYERS ARE MAR-
RIED.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) successful stable marriages are an essential
part of a successful stable society;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(2) the breakdown of marriages has been one of
the causes of our unacceptable crime, illiteracy, school
dropout, drug abuse, and illegitimacy rates;
(3) the Federal Government has a moral and
ethical obligation to help promote stable marriages or
at least to not undermine them financially;
(4) the Internal Revenue Code currently contains
a number of provisions that financially penalize cou-
ples for becoming or remaining married (so called
‘‘marriage penalties’’);
(5) marriage penalties are in effect an annual
Federal tax on marriage licenses;
(6) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 added new marriage penalties to the Internal
Revenue Code and expanded some existing marriage
penalties;
(7) marriage penalties financially discriminate
against the most fundamental and important unit in
our society—the family—and are especially harmful
to our Nation’s children; and
(8) there is no policy justification for the Federal
Government to financially penalize couples simply be-
cause they choose to become or remain legally mar-
ried.
H CON RES 218 EAS
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that no taxpayer, regardless of age, sex, income, or num-
ber of dependents, should be required to pay more in Fed-
eral taxes under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code
because that taxpayer is legally married.
SEC. 47. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN DE-
PARTMENT 
OF 
ENERGY 
REDUCTIONS-IN-
FORCE.
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) a reduction-in-force at the Department of
Energy’s Kansas City Plant should not be carried out
until—
(A) the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1995 and the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year
1995 become law; or
(B) Congress has otherwise approved such
an action.
SEC. 48. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING MINERALS
MANAGEMENT.
It is the sense of the Congress that the budget authority
and outlay totals set forth in this resolution assume suffi-
cient funding under budget function 300 (Natural Re-
sources and Environment) to ensure—
H CON RES 218 EAS
(1) the ability of the Minerals Management Serv-
ice to run an effective Outer Continental Shelf re-
source evaluation program that responds to increased
interest on OCS areas, including Alaska;
(2) the ability of the United States Geological
Survey to continue to perform mineral resource sur-
veys at the same levels as in previous years; and
(3) the continued effective functioning of all cur-
rent Bureau of Mines offices.
SEC. 49. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING DIESEL FUEL DYE-
ING REGULATIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that changes made
to the collection point of the diesel fuel excise tax made as
part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the
Internal Revenue Service regulations implementing such
changes have caused economic hardship, created market dis-
tortions, and added burdens to users and suppliers of diesel
fuel by—
(1) requiring businesses, primarily small entre-
preneurs, to invest thousands of dollars in equipment,
or choose between taxable and nontaxable users of die-
sel fuel, in order to comply with the new rules;
(2) imposing cumbersome notification require-
ments for marketers and distributors of diesel fuel
and home heating oil; and
H CON RES 218 EAS
(3) creating shortages of fuel due to storage tank
limitations.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that—
(1) the Internal Revenue Service should make
every effort to ensure its regulations implementing the
changes to the collection point for the diesel fuel excise
tax will minimize the economic hardship, market dis-
tortions, unnecessary burdens, and supply shortages;
(2) such regulations should, to the extent pos-
sible, be consistent with Environmental Protection
Agency regulations implementing the diesel desulfur-
ization program; and
(3) if the Internal Revenue Service lacks the au-
thority to issue revised regulations consistent with
this resolution, then Congress should consider legisla-
tion that will eliminate these hardships, distortions,
burdens, and shortages.
SEC. 50. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF REDUCTIONS IN DISCRE-
TIONARY SPENDING.
The Senate finds that since the President’s fiscal year
1995 defense budget request represents the tenth straight
year of real cuts in defense and if the President’s defense
budget request is approved, since 1985 real defense spending
H CON RES 218 EAS
will have been reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and Presi-
dent Clinton, during his State of the Union address on Jan-
uary 25, 1994, promised no further cuts in defense spend-
ing. Then it is the sense of the Senate that the annual levels
of the (050) function should be reduced from the President’s
fiscal year 1995–1999 budget request only after other an-
nual levels of non-defense discretionary spending in the
budget resolution have been reduced, fairly and appro-
priately.
SEC. 51. STAR WARS (BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE).
It is the sense of the Congress that given the Federal
budget deficit, the real reductions in discretionary spending
in this resolution, and the existence of many more worthy
programs competing for this funding, spending for the Star
Wars (Ballistic Missile Defense) must not exceed the fiscal
year 1994 appropriated level.
SEC. 52. CONTROL GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENT OR MANDA-
TORY SPENDING.
It is the sense of the Senate that legislation should be
enacted providing enforceable limits to control the growth
of entitlement or mandatory spending.
H CON RES 218 EAS
SEC. 53. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SHIFTING THE ALLO-
CATION OF ANTI-DRUG FUNDS FROM INTER-
NATIONAL ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS TO DRUG
TREATMENT AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) in 1991 over 11,000 hectares of opium pro-
duction were eradicated out of over 238,000 hectares
under opium cultivation;
(2) in 1992 over 22,000 hectares of opium pro-
duction were eradicated, but the amount of hectares
under opium cultivation grew to over 255,000 hec-
tares;
(3) in the face of a successful opium eradication
program in 1992, the amount of land under active
opium cultivation grew by 6,700 hectares;
(4) in 1991 over 6,500 hectares of coca leaf pro-
duction were eradicated out of over 212,700 hectares
under cultivation;
(5) in 1992 fewer than 5,300 hectares of coca leaf
production were eradicated, and the amount of hec-
tares under active coca leaf cultivation grew to almost
217,000;
(6) the amount of land under active coca leaf
production grew by 5,300 hectares in 1992, and coca
leaf production increased by 1,200 metric tons over
production in 1991;
H CON RES 218 EAS
(7) the Drug Enforcement Administration has
reported that the purity of cocaine available in the
United States has increased since 1990, which dem-
onstrates that adequate supplies of cocaine continue to
be produced and smuggled into the United States;
(8) the Drug Enforcement Administration has
reported that the price of cocaine available in the
United States has remained stable or declined since
1990, again demonstrating that adequate supplies of
cocaine are being produced and smuggled into the
United States;
(9) many observers of national drug policy have
come to conclude that the efforts of the United States
to reduce the supply of drugs through international
law enforcement and training, economic development,
and crop substitution programs in foreign nations
cannot succeed in reducing the supply of drugs avail-
able in the United States;
(10) recent studies demonstrate that drug treat-
ment and prevention programs have achieved notable
success in reducing drug use and associated criminal-
ity, including the commission of violent crime by
drug users;
(11) the current national capacity to provide
drug treatment falls far short of being able to provide
H CON RES 218 EAS
adequate treatment to drug users who need and want
treatment;
(12) additional resources are needed to add drug
treatment capacity and to expand drug prevention
programs.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Con-
gress that
(1) in setting forth the budget authority and out-
lay amounts in this resolution, Congress should take
note of the failure of past spending to support inter-
national anti-drug programs, including but not lim-
ited to those of the Agency for International Develop-
ment, the Bureau of International Narcotics Matters
and the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs of the De-
partment of State, and the Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration; and
(2) the budget authority and outlay amounts in
this resolution should be reallocated from inter-
national anti-drug programs to support successful
drug treatment and prevention programs that will
curb the demand for illegal drugs; and
(3) one-half of the budget authority and outlay
amounts to combat illegal drugs be expended to reduce
the demand for illegal drugs in the United States and
H CON RES 218 EAS
one-half of such amounts be expended to reduce the
supply of such drugs in the United States; and
(4) no budget authority or outlay amounts re-
allocated in accordance with the provisions of this
section shall be taken from budget authority and out-
lay amounts for foreign aid or international develop-
ment other than those accounts that support inter-
national anti-drug programs.
SAC. 54. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIA-
TIVE.
(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—For purposes of points of order
under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 and concurrent resolutions on the budget
(1) the discretionary spending limits under sec-
tion 601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumu-
latively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each
outwear;
(2) the allocations to the Committees on Appro-
priations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that
Act; and
(3) the levels for major functional category 800
(General Government) and the appropriate budgetary
aggregates in the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget,
H CON RES 218 EAS
(3) levels for major functional category 800
(General Government) and the appropriate budgetary
aggregates in the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget,
to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary
spending limits, allocations, functional levels, and aggre-
gates shall be considered for purposes of congressional en-
forcement under that Act as the discretionary spending lim-
its, allocations, functional levels, and aggregates.
(c) REPORTING REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—The Com-
mittees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives may report appropriately revised alloca-
tions pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
(d) CONTINGENCIES.—This section shall not apply to
any additional new budget authority or additional outlays
unless
(1) in the case of such budget authority or out-
lays for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies
(A) to the Chairmen of the Committees on
the Budget of the Senate and the House of Rep-
resentatives, and
(B) to the Chairmen of the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on
100
H CON RES 218 EAS
Ways and Means of the House of Representa-
tives,
that there has been enacted into law a Taxpayer Bill
of Rights 2 which is substantially similar to that con-
tained in the conference report to H.R. 11, 102d Con-
gress, 2d Session;
(2) the Secretary of the Treasury certifies to the
chairmen described in paragraph (1)(A) that the In-
ternal Revenue Service will initiate and implement
an educational program with respect to the Taxpayer
Bill of Rights 1 and 2 for any new employees hired
pursuant to such budget authority or outlays;
(3) the Director of the Congressional Budget Of-
fice certifies to the chairmen described in paragraph
(1)(A) that such budget authority or outlays will not
increase the Federal budget deficit; and
(4) any funds made available pursuant to such
budget authority or outlays are available only for the
purpose of carrying out Internal Revenue Service
compliance initiative activities.
(e) SUNSET.—This section shall expire September 30,
1998.
SAC. 55. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONTROLLING NON-SO-
CIAL SECURITY MANDATORY SPENDING.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should
101
H CON RES 218 EAS
(1) enact, after health care reform legislation is
enacted, annual caps on mandatory spending that
take effect beginning in fiscal year 1996;
(2) include within such caps all mandatory
spending programs except Social Security, deposit in-
surance and net interest;
(3) provide that the caps shall be set so that pro-
grams providing benefits to individuals may grow for
inflation, changes in the numbers of beneficiaries, and
an additional growth allowance of
(A) 4 percent in 1996,
(B) 3.5 percent in 1997,
(C) 3 percent in 1998, and
(D) 2 percent in 1999 and thereafter;
(4) provide that the caps shall be adjusted annu-
ally in the President’s budget for changes in inflation
and the number of beneficiaries in mandatory spend-
ing programs since the caps were enacted (excluding
any changes due to legislation); and
(5) provide that if total mandatory spending ex-
ceeds the formula in subsection (3), the caps shall be
enforced by
((A) requiring the President’s budget to
comply with the caps, including submission of
proposals to reduce mandatory spending to stay
102
H CON RES 218 EAS
within the caps if a breach is expected under
current law;
(B) super majority points-of-order prohibit-
ing the consideration of future budget resolutions
or legislation that would breach the caps; and
(C) at the conclusion of each session of Con-
gress, a sequestration procedure that would re-
duce mandatory spending by the amount of any
breach of the cap in the upcoming year by reduc-
ing those programs growing faster than infla-
tion, beneficiary changes, and the additional
growth allowance for that year.
(6) provides for a period of not less than 60 days
before such sequestration for committees of the House
and the Senate with jurisdiction over mandatory pro-
grams which are determined to be exceeding these al-
lowable spending levels to report legislation that re-
duces direct spending in their jurisdiction by an
amount sufficient to eliminate the excess spending;
(7) ensures that reductions in Federal spending
for mandatory programs required by such legislation
103
H CON RES 218 EAS
is not to be achieved by shifting costs to State and
local governments.
Attest:
Secretary.