•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$3,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$3,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$3,600,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $2,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$3,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$19,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$19,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$18,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$13,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$12,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$10,900,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,600,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$10,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$8,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$11,100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$8,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$10,900,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $5,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$2,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$6,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$4,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$2,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$4,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$2,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$3,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$1,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$1,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$1,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $123,100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$40,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$42,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,500,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$43,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$43,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$44,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$43,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$43,300,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $33,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,800,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$6,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$2,700,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $1,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$45,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,300,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$13,600,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $16,300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$45,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,400,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$16,300,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $15,900,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$44,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$19,100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $15,200,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$45,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$21,800,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $14,300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$45,900,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $45,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$21,900,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $15,000,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$45,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$22,000,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $15,800,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$44,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,700,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$22,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $16,600,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$121,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$127,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $127,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$132,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,200,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$136,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $136,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$141,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $141,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$146,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$149,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $148,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$177,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $175,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$186,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $185,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$195,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $194,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$206,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $203,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$214,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $212,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$224,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $222,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$234,600,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $232,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$222,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $225,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$231,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $235,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$248,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $243,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$255,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$265,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$267,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $269,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$277,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $279,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $100,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$5,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$8,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$8,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$9,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$10,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$37,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $26,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$38,100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,100,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $21,600,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$38,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,000,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $19,700,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$39,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,000,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $18,600,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$39,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,200,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $19,300,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$39,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $19,900,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$40,100,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(B) Outlays, $41,600,000,000.
(C) 
New 
direct 
loan 
obligations,
$1,700,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $20,600,000,000.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$16,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$15,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1996:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$12,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$12,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$11,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$295,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $295,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$304,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $304,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$308,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $308,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$314,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $314,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$319,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $319,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $320,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $320,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$322,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$1,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$2,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$34,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$34,400,000,000.
•HCON 67 RH
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$34,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$34,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$37,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$37,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 1999:
•HCON 67 RH
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
$36,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$38,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$38,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$37,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$37,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
•HCON 67 RH
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) 
New 
budget 
authority,
¥$39,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$39,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commit-
ments, $0.
(E) New secondary loan guarantee com-
mitments, $0.
SEC. 4. RECONCILIATION.
(a)(1) Not later than July 14, 1995, the House com-
mittees named in paragraphs (1) through (12) of sub-
section (b) of this section shall submit their recommenda-
tions to the House Committee on the Budget. After receiv-
ing those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill car-
rying out all such recommendations without any sub-
stantive revision.
(2) Each committee named in paragraphs (1)
through (11) of subsection (b) shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such
that the total level of direct spending for that committee
for—
•HCON 67 RH
(A) fiscal year 1996,
(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and
(C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,
does not exceed the total level of direct spending in that
period in the paragraph applicable to that committee.
(3) Each committee named in paragraphs (2)(B),
(4)(B), (5)(B), and (6)(B) of subsection (b) shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction as set forth in the
paragraph applicable to that committee.
(4) The Committee on Ways and Means shall carry
out subsection (b)(12).
(b)(1) The House Committee on Agriculture:
$35,824,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$171,886,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and $263,102,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1996 through 2002.
(2)(A) The House Committee on Banking and Finan-
cial Services: ¥$12,897,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year
1996, ¥$43,065,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and ¥$57,184,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(B) The House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
•HCON 67 RH
that would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1996,
¥$100,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and
¥$260,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
(3) 
The 
House 
Committee 
on 
Commerce:
$293,665,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$1,726,600,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and $2,625,094,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(4)(A) The House Committee on Economic and Edu-
cational Opportunities: $13,727,000,000 in outlays in fis-
cal year 1996, $61,570,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1996 through 2000, and $95,520,000,000 in outlays in
fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
(B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant
to subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities shall report program
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that would result
in a reduction in outlays as follows: ¥$720,000,000 in
fiscal year 1996, ¥$5,908,000,000 in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and ¥$9,018,000,000 in fiscal years 1996
through 2002.
(5)(A) The House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight: $57,725,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year
1996, $313,647,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
•HCON 67 RH
through 2000, and $455,328,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant
to subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Govern-
ment Reform and Oversight shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by:
¥$988,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, ¥$9,618,000,000 in
fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and ¥$14,740,000,000
in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
(6)(A) The House Committee on International Rela-
tions: $14,246,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$62,076,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and $83,206,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2002.
(B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant
to subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Inter-
national Relations shall shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by:
¥$19,000,000,000 
in 
fiscal 
year 
1996,
¥$95,000,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,
and ¥$123,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
(7) The House Committee on the Judiciary:
$2,580,000,000 
in 
outlays 
in 
fiscal 
year 
1996,
$14,043,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
•HCON 67 RH
2000, and $20,029,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2002.
(8) The House Committee on National Security:
$38,769,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$224,682,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and $328,334,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1996 through 2002.
(9) 
The 
House 
Committee 
on 
Resources:
$1,558,000,000 
in 
outlays 
in 
fiscal 
year 
1996,
$6,532,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and $12,512,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2002.
(10) The House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure: $16,636,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year
1996, $83,227,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and $117,079,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(11) The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs:
$19,041,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$105,965,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996 through
2000, and $154,054,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1996 through 2002.
(12)(A) The House Committee on Ways and Means
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
•HCON 67 RH
provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee for—
(i) fiscal year 1996,
(ii) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and
(iii) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,
does not exceed the following level in that period:
$356,336,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$2,152,905,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and $3,297,787,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(B) In addition to changes in law reported pursuant
to subparagraph (A), the House Committee on Ways and
Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
such that the total level of revenues for that committee
for—
(i) fiscal year 1996,
(ii) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and
(iii) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,
is not less than the following amount in that period:
$1,027,612,000,000 
in 
fiscal 
year 
1996,
$5,371,087,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000,
•HCON 67 RH
and $7,836,405,000,000 in fiscal years 1996 through
2002.
(c)(1) Not later than September 14, 1995, the House
committees named in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall submit
their recommendations to the House Committee on the
Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the
House Budget Committee shall report to the House a rec-
onciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without any substantive revisions.
(2) In addition to changes in laws reported pursuant
to subsection (b)(3), the House Committee on Commerce
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee for—
(A) fiscal year 1996,
(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and
(C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,
does not exceed the following level in that period:
$287,165,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$1,592,200,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and $2,338,694,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
•HCON 67 RH
(3) In addition to changes in laws reported pursuant
to subsection (b)(12), the House Committee on Ways and
Means shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending such that the total level of
direct spending for that committee for—
(A) fiscal year 1996,
(B) the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2000, and
(C) the 7-year period beginning with fiscal year
1996 and ending with fiscal year 2002,
does not exceed the following level in that period:
$349,836,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 1996,
$2,018,505,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1996
through 2000, and $3,009,387,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1996 through 2002.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘direct
spending’’ has the meaning given to such term in section
250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
SEC. 5. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Con-
gress that—
(1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has
discouraged the sale of assets that can be better
•HCON 67 RH
managed by the private sector and generate receipts
to reduce the Federal budget deficit;
(2) the President’s fiscal year 1996 budget in-
cluded $8,000,000,000 in receipts from asset sales
and proposed a change in the asset sale scoring rule
to allow the proceeds from these sales to be scored;
(3) assets should not be sold if such sale would
increase the budget deficit over the long run; and
(4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be
repealed and consideration should be given to replac-
ing it with a methodology that takes into account
the long-term budgetary impact of asset sale.
(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—For purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the amounts realized
from sales of assets shall be scored with respect to the
level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.
(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the
term ‘‘sale of an asset’’ shall have the same meaning as
under section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(d) TREATMENT OF LOAN ASSETS.—For purposes of
this section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of
a loan shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990.
•HCON 67 RH
SEC. 6. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIA-
TIVE.
(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—(1) For purposes of points of
order under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and
concurrent resolutions on the budget—
(A) the discretionary spending limits under sec-
tion 601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cu-
mulatively adjusted) for the current fiscal year and
each outyear;
(B) the allocations to the Committee on Appro-
priations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that
Act; and
(C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget,
shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of additional new
budget authority or additional outlays (as defined in para-
graph (2)) reported by the Committee on Appropriations
in appropriation Acts (or by the committee of conference
on such legislation) for the Internal Revenue Service com-
pliance initiative activities in any fiscal year, but not to
exceed in any fiscal year $405,000,000 in new budget au-
thority and $405,000,000 in outlays.
(2) As used in this section, the terms ‘‘additional new
budget authority’’ or ‘‘additional outlays’’ shall mean, for
any fiscal year, budget authority or outlays (as the case
•HCON 67 RH
may be) in excess of the amounts requested for that fiscal
year for the Internal Revenue Service in the President’s
Budget for fiscal year 1996.
(b) REVISED LIMITS, ALLOCATIONS, AND AGGRE-
GATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation pursuant to
subsection (a), and again upon the submission of a con-
ference report on such legislation (if a conference report
is submitted), the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate or the House of Representatives (as
the case may be) shall submit to that chairman’s respec-
tive House appropriately revised—
(1) discretionary spending limits under section
601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(and those limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the
current fiscal year and each outyear;
(2) allocations to the Committee on Appropria-
tions under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act;
and
(3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the
most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the
budget,
to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary
spending limits, allocations, and aggregates shall be con-
sidered for purposes of congressional enforcement under
•HCON 67 RH
that Act as the discretionary spending limits, allocations,
and aggregates.
(c) REPORTING REVISED SUBALLOCATIONS.—The
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the
House of Representatives may report appropriately revised
suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and
602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to
carry out this section.
(d) CONTINGENCIES.—
(1) The Internal Revenue Service and the De-
partment of the Treasury have certified that they
are firmly committed to the principles of privacy,
confidentiality, courtesy, and protection of taxpayer
rights. To this end, the Internal Revenue Service
and the Department of the Treasury have explicitly
committed to initiate and implement educational
programs for any new employees hired as a result of
the compliance initiative made possible by this sec-
tion.
(2) This section shall not apply to any addi-
tional new budget authority or additional outlays un-
less—
(A) the chairmen of the Budget Commit-
tees certify, based upon information from the
Congressional Budget Office, the General Ac-
•HCON 67 RH
counting Office, and the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice (as well as from any other sources they
deem relevant), that such budget authority or
outlays will not increase the total of the Federal
budget deficits over the next five years; and
(B) any funds made available pursuant to
such budget authority or outlays are available
only for the purpose of carrying out Internal
Revenue Service compliance initiative activities.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON BASELINES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:
(1) Baselines are projections of future spending
if existing policies remain unchanged.
(2) Under baseline assumptions, spending auto-
matically rises with inflation even if such increases
are not provided under current law.
(3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased
against policies that would reduce the projected
growth in spending because such policies are scored
as a reduction from a rising baseline.
(4) The baseline concept has encouraged Con-
gress to abdicate its constitutional responsibility to
control the public purse for programs which are
automatically funded under existing law.
•HCON 67 RH
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
Congress that baseline budgeting should be replaced with
a form of budgeting that requires full justification and
analysis of budget proposals and maximizes congressional
accountability for public spending.
SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EMERGENCIES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:
(1) The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 ex-
empted from the discretionary spending limits and
the Pay-As-You-Go requirements for entitlement and
tax legislation funding requirements that are des-
ignated by Congress and the President as an emer-
gency.
(2) Congress and the President have increas-
ingly misused the emergency designation by—
(A) designating funding as an emergency
that is neither unforeseen nor a genuine emer-
gency, and
(B) circumventing spending limits or pass-
ing controversial items that would not pass
scrutiny in a free-standing bill.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress that Congress should study alternative approaches
to budgeting for emergencies, including codifying the defi-
•HCON 67 RH
nition of an emergency and establishing contingency funds
to pay for emergencies.
SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION
OF THE STUDENT LOAN MARKETING ASSO-
CIATION (SALLIE MAE).
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that:
(1) The Student Loan Marketing Association
was established in 1972 as a government-sponsored
corporation dedicated to ensuring adequate private
sector funding for federally guaranteed education
loans.
(2) Since 1972, student loan volume has grown
from $1,000,000,000 a year to $25,000,000,000 a
year. The Student Loan Marketing Association was
instrumental in fostering this expansion of the stu-
dent loan program.
(3) With securitization and 42 secondary mar-
kets, there currently exist numerous alternatives for
lenders wishing to sell or liquidate their portfolios of
student loans.
(4) Maintaining Student Loan Marketing Asso-
ciation as a Government-sponsored enterprise ex-
poses taxpayers to an unnecessary liability.
•HCON 67 RH
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense Congress
that the Student Loan Marketing Association should be
restructured as a private corporation.
SEC. 10. SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARD-
ING DEBT REPAYMENT.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
(1) the Congress has a basic moral and ethical
responsibility to future generations to repay the
Federal debt;
(2) the Congress should enact a plan that bal-
ances the budget, and then also develops a regimen
for paying off the Federal debt;
(3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus
should be created, which can be used to begin paying
off the debt; and
(4) such a plan should be formulated and im-
plemented so that this generation can save future
generations from the crushing burdens of the Fed-
eral debt.
SEC. 11. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REPEAL OF
HOUSE RULE XLIX AND THE LEGAL LIMIT ON
THE PUBLIC DEBT.
It is the sense of Congress that—
•HCON 67 RH
(1) rule XLIX of the Rules of House of Rep-
resentatives (popularly known as the Gephardt rule)
should be repealed;
(2) the fiscal year 1996 reconciliation bill
should be enacted into law before passage of the
debt limit extension; and
(3) the debt limit should only be set at levels,
and for durations, that help assure a balanced budg-
et by fiscal year 2002 or sooner.
SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE BUDG-
ETARY TREATMENT OF THE ADMINISTRA-
TIVE COSTS FOR DIRECT LOANS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 understates the cost to the
Government of direct loans because administrative costs
are not included in the net present value calculation of
Federal direct loan subsidy costs.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
Congress that the cost of a direct loan should be the net
present value, at the time the direct loan is disbursed, of
the following cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:
(1) Loan disbursement.
(2) Repayments of principal.
(3) Interest costs and other payments by or to
the Government over the life of the loan after ad-
•HCON 67 RH
justing for estimated defaults, prepayments, fees,
penalties, and other recoveries.
(4) In the case of a direct loan made pursuant
to a program for which the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that for the coming fiscal year (or
any prior fiscal year) loan commitments will equal or
exceed $5,000,000,000, direct expenses, including
expenses arising from—
(A) activities related to credit extension,
loan origination, and loan servicing;
(B) payments to contractors, other Govern-
ment entities, and program participants;
(C) management of contractors;
(D) collection of delinquents loans; and
(E) write-off and close-out of loans.
SEC. 13. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING COMMIS-
SION ON THE SOLVENCY OF THE FEDERAL
MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
FUNDS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the Federal
retirement system, for both military and civil service retir-
ees, currently has liabilities of $1.1 trillion, while holding
assets worth $340 billion and anticipating employee con-
tributions of $220 billion, which leaves an unfunded liabil-
ity of $540 billion.
•HCON 67 RH
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
Congress that a high-level commission should be convened
to study the problems associated with the Federal retire-
ment system and make recommendations that will ensure
the long-term solvency of the military and civil service re-
tirement funds.
HCON 67 RH——2
HCON 67 RH——3
HCON 67 RH——4
HCON 67 RH——5
HCON 67 RH——6
HCON 67 RH——7