IV
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. CON. RES. 201
Expressing the sense of the Congress that any Federal Government mandated
health care reform should be on-budget.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 2, 1994
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. PENNY, Mr. MICHEL, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr.
STENHOLM, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DEAL, Mr. KASICH, Mr. PETE GEREN of
Texas, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. ROWLAND, Mr. DELAY, Mr. JACOBS, Mr.
HYDE, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. THOMAS of California, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr.
LANCASTER, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. GOSS, Mr. PE-
TERSON of Minnesota, Mr. GRANDY, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. BURTON of Indi-
ana, Mr. WALKER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana,
Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. BE-
REUTER, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.
BUYER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CANADY, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. COL-
LINS of Georgia, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. COX, Mr. CRANE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr.
DICKEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. DUNCAN, Ms. DUNN, Mr.
EHLERS, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. EWING, Mr. FIELDS of
Texas, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. FRANKS of Con-
necticut, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. GREEN-
WOOD, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOBSON, Mr.
HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOKE, Mr. HORN, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. INGLIS of South
Carolina, Mr. ISTOOK, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. SAM JOHNSON
of Texas, Mr. KLUG, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr.
LINDER, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. MCKEON,
Mr. MCMILLAN, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. MEYERS of Kan-
sas, Mr. MICA, Mr. MYERS of Indiana, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. OXLEY, Mr.
PACKARD, Mr. PAXON, Mr. POMBO, Mr. PORTMAN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio,
Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. REGULA, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SCHAE-
FER, Mr. SHAW, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SKEEN,
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SMITH of Michigan,
Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SUNDQUIST,
Mr. TALENT, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. UPTON,
Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. WELDON, Mr. WOLF, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. ZIMMER,
Mr. CLINGER, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. LAZIO) submitted the
HCON 201 IH
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
Government Operations
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress that any Federal
Government mandated health care reform should be on-
budget.
Whereas the administration’s proposed health care reform
plan would constitute the largest expansion of Federal
entitlements in history;
Whereas the proposed health care premiums would be manda-
tory taxes;
Whereas the administration’s proposed health care reform
plan would constitute a massive tax increase;
Whereas the cost of any health care reform plan that is kept
off-budget would be difficult to control and account for;
Whereas placing health care reform off-budget means that it
would be exempt from annual budget reviews and would
have no meaningful restraints on growth;
Whereas the Office of Management and Budget’s own risk
tables and past and present entitlement growth trends
show that the administration’s proposed health care re-
form plan could increase Federal budget deficits by up to
$800,000,000,000 by the year 2000;
Whereas the Federal Government has already run up massive
unfunded liabilities outside the budget process; and
Whereas the attempt to place the health care reform plan off-
budget is a move to hide the true cost of the plan from
the American public: Now, therefore, be it