H. Con. Res.178—9
(A) New budget authority, $12,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,414,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,759,000,000
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$195,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $11,363,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,377,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,745,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$195,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $11,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,312,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,740,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$194,875,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $42,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,311,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $43,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,306,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $43,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,886,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $43,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,678,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $44,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,121,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $44,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,624,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $8,218,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—10
(B) Outlays, $10,321,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,231,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$2,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $6,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,982,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,257,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$2,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $6,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,111,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,287,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$1,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $6,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,267,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,365,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$1,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $6,466,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,819,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,404,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$2,202,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $6,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,334,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,430,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$2,202,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $48,983,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,964,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$17,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $47,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,758,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$19,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $48,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,761,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$20,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $48,931,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,319,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—11
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$21,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $49,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,953,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$23,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $50,409,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,629,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $16,219,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,085,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $133,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $133,172,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$187,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $140,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,728,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$94,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $146,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,246,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $152,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,317,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $158,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,509,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $164,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,912,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $192,835,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $191,151,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res.178—12
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $207,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $205,687,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $218,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $215,819,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $230,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $228,847,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $243,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $241,458,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $253,649,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $251,248,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $230,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,737,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $241,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $244,694,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $246,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $253,422,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $265,119,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,209,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
H. Con. Res.178—13
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $264,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,404,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $283,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $280,388,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $7,813,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,001,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $8,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,213,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $9,219,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,922,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $9,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,662,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $10,775,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,458,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $11,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,290,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $38,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,561,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $935,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$26,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
H. Con. Res.178—14
(A) New budget authority, $38,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,313,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $962,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $38,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,644,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $987,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $38,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,886,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,021,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$24,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $38,382,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,265,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,189,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$24,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $39,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,602,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,194,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$23,668,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $20,924,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,540,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $22,320,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,397,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $23,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,331,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $23,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,966,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $20,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,281,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—15
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $20,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,267,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $12,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,186,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $14,097,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,275,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $13,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,461,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,675,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $13,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,185,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $13,209,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,831,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $282,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,591,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $289,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,121,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res.178—16
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $292,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $292,939,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $294,426,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $294,426,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $298,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $298,531,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $302,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,932,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$465,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$1,867,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$1,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$1,217,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$1,085,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$1,413,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,401,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
H. Con. Res.178—17
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$2,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$2,863,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$45,334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$45,334,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $7,900,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$35,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$35,539,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,350,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$34,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$34,727,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$36,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$36,505,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$38,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$38,277,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$39,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$39,940,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
TITLE II—RECONCILIATION
DIRECTIONS
SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) SUBMISSIONS.—
(1) WELFARE
AND
MEDICAID
REFORM
AND
TAX
RELIEF.—
Not later than June 13, 1996, the House committees named
in subsection (b) shall submit their recommendations to provide
direct spending and revenues to the Committee on the Budget
of the House of Representatives. After receiving those rec-
ommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall report to
H. Con. Res.178—18
the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such rec-
ommendations without any substantive revision.
(2) MEDICARE
PRESERVATION.—Not later than July 18,
1996, the House committees named in subsection (c) shall sub-
mit their recommendations to provide direct spending to the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying
out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.
(3) TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS DIRECT SPENDING REFORMS.—
Not later than September 6, 1996, the House committees named
in subsection (d) shall submit their recommendations to provide
direct spending, deficit reduction, and revenues to the Commit-
tee on the Budget of the House of Representatives. After receiv-
ing those recommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall
report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
(b) INSTRUCTIONS FOR WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM AND
TAX RELIEF.—
(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee
on Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending such that the total level
of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$35,609,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $36,625,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $216,316,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(2) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—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 does not exceed: $326,354,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $473,718,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2002, and $2,395,231,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1997 through 2002.
(3) COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNI-
TIES.—The House Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending such that the total level
of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$15,808,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $19,670,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $105,331,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(4) COMMITTEE
ON
WAYS
AND
MEANS.—(A) The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that
the total level of direct spending for that committee does not
exceed: $381,199,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,
$563,607,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and
$2,810,569,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(B) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce reve-
nues by not more than $122,400,000,000 for fiscal years 1997
through 2002.
(c) INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEDICARE PRESERVATION.—
(1) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—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 does not exceed: $319,554,000,000
H. Con. Res.178—19
in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $420,915,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2002, and $2,237,231,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1997 through 2002.
(2) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.—The House Commit-
tee 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 does not exceed:
$374,399,000,000 
in 
outlays 
for 
fiscal 
year 
1997,
$510,804,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and
$2,652,569,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(d) INSTRUCTIONS FOR TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS DIRECT SPEND-
ING REFORMS.—
(1) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE.—The House Committee
on Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending such that the total level
of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$35,599,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $36,614,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $216,251,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(2) COMMITTEE
ON
BANKING
AND
FINANCIAL
SERVICES.—
(A) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Services
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide
direct spending such that the total level of direct spending
for that committee does not exceed: ¥$12,645,000,000 in out-
lays for fiscal year 1997, ¥$5,775,000,000 in outlays for fiscal
year 2002, and ¥$41,639,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1997 through 2002.
(B) The House Committee on Banking and Financial Serv-
ices shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
would reduce the deficit by: $0 in fiscal year 1997, $115,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, and $305,000,000 in fiscal years 1997
through 2002.
(3) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE.—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 does not exceed: $318,054,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $415,290,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2002, and $2,216,885,000,000 in outlays in fiscal
years 1997 through 2002.
(4) COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNI-
TIES.—The House Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending such that the total level
of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$15,025,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $18,963,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $101,660,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(5) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT.—
(A) The House Committee on Government Reform and Over-
sight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
provide direct spending such that the total level of direct spend-
ing for that committee does not exceed: $65,164,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 1997, $82,594,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2002, and $442,230,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1997 through 2002.
(B) The House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
H. Con. Res.178—20
that would reduce the deficit by: $201,000,000 in fiscal year
1997, $590,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $2,837,000,000
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(6) COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.—The House
Committee on International Relations shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such
that the total level of direct spending for that committee does
not exceed: $13,025,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,
$10,311,000,000 
in 
outlays 
for 
fiscal 
year 
2002, 
and
$67,953,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(7) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The House Committee
on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending such that the total level
of direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$2,784,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $4,586,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and $26,482,000,000 in outlays
in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(8) COMMITTEE
ON
NATIONAL
SECURITY.—The House
Committee on National Security shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that
the total level of direct spending for that committee does not
exceed: $39,787,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,
$49,774,000,000 
in 
outlays 
for 
fiscal 
year 
2002, 
and
$271,815,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(9) COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES.—The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee does not exceed: $2,115,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $2,048,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2002, and $11,652,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1997 through 2002.
(10) COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE.—The House Committee on
Science shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee does not exceed: $40,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 1997, $46,000,000 in outlays for fiscal
year 2002, and $242,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997
through 2002.
(11) COMMITTEE
ON
TRANSPORTATION
AND
INFRASTRUC-
TURE.—The House Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending such that the total level of direct
spending for that committee does not exceed: $18,315,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 1997, $18,001,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2002, and $107,328,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years
1997 through 2002.
(12) COMMITTEE
ON
VETERANS’ 
AFFAIRS.—The House
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that
the total level of direct spending for that committee does not
exceed: $21,375,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,
$22,217,000,000 
in 
outlays 
for 
fiscal 
year 
2002, 
and
$130,468,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(13) COMMITTEE
ON
WAYS
AND
MEANS.—(A) The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending such that
the total level of direct spending for that committee does not
H. Con. Res.178—21
exceed: $372,342,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997,
$508,107,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002, and
$2,638,057,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
(B)(i) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce revenues by not more than $113,838,000,000 in fiscal
years 1997 through 2002.
(ii) If a reconciliation bill referred to in subsection (a)(1)
is enacted into law, then the revenue amount set forth in
clause (i) shall be adjusted to reflect the revenue provisions
of that Act.
(e) DEFINITION.—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. 202. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.
(a) FIRST RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.—Not later than June
21, 1996, the committees named in this subsection shall submit
their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on
the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying
out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.
(1) COMMITTEE
ON
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FOR-
ESTRY.—The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) to reduce outlays $1,974,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,
$26,169,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through
2002, and $5,967,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(2) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—(A) The Senate Committee
on Finance shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) to reduce outlays $260,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,
$98,321,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through
2002, and $36,578,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(B) The Committee on Finance shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues by
not more than $122,400,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
1997 through 2002.
(b) SECOND RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS.—No later than July
24, 1996, the Committee on Finance shall report to the Senate
a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985)
to 
reduce 
outlays 
$6,800,000,000 
in 
fiscal 
year 
1997,
$158,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002,
and $52,803,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(c) THIRD
RECONCILIATION
INSTRUCTIONS.—No later than
September 18, 1996, the committees named in this subsection shall
submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget
of the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the Commit-
tee on the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
H. Con. Res.178—22
(1) COMMITTEE
ON
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FOR-
ESTRY.—The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) to reduce outlays $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,
$65,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2002,
and $11,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(2) COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.—The Senate Commit-
tee on Armed Services shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in sec-
tion 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $79,000,000 in fiscal
year 1997, $649,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997
through 2002, and $166,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(3) COMMITTEE
ON
BANKING, 
HOUSING, 
AND
URBAN
AFFAIRS.—The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that reduce the deficit by $3,628,000,000 in fiscal year
1997, $3,605,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through
2002, and $462,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(4) COMMITTEE
ON
COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPOR-
TATION.—The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) to reduce outlays $19,396,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $5,649,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.
(5) COMMITTEE
ON
ENERGY
AND
NATURAL
RESOURCES.—
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct
spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays
$90,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $1,512,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $72,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.
(6) COMMITTEE
ON
ENVIRONMENT
AND
PUBLIC
WORKS.—
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct
spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays
$87,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $2,184,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $392,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.
(7) COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.—(A) The Senate Committee
on Finance shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
that reduce the deficit by $3,639,000,000 in fiscal year 1997,
$23,184,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1997 through
2002, and $4,121,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(B) The Committee on Finance shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction to reduce revenues for the period
of fiscal years 1997 through 2002 by not more than the amount
specified in subsection (a)(2)(B) reduced by the amount that
legislation enacted pursuant to subsection (a) reduced revenues
for that period of fiscal years.
H. Con. Res.178—23
(8) COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.—The Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in
laws 
within 
its 
jurisdiction 
that 
reduce 
the 
deficit
$1,101,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $8,801,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $1,492,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.
(9) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.—The Senate Committee
on the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its jurisdic-
tion that provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985) to reduce outlays $476,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 1997 through 2002 and $119,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(10) COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES.—The
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spend-
ing (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays
$783,000,000 in fiscal year 1997, $3,671,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and $707,000,000 in fiscal
year 2002.
(11) COMMITTEE
ON
VETERANS’ 
AFFAIRS.—The Senate
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined
in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $126,000,000
in fiscal year 1997, $5,271,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
1997 through 2002, and $1,418,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
(d) TREATMENT
OF RECONCILIATION BILLS
FOR PRIOR SUR-
PLUS.—For purposes of section 202 of House Concurrent Resolution
67 (104th Congress), legislation which reduces revenues pursuant
to a reconciliation instruction contained in subsection (c) shall be
taken together with all other legislation enacted pursuant to the
reconciliation instructions contained in this resolution when deter-
mining the deficit effect of such legislation.
TITLE III—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) DEFINITION.—As used in this section and for the purposes
of allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary category,
the term ‘‘discretionary spending limit’’ means—
(1) with respect to fiscal year 1997—
(A) for the defense category $266,362,000,000 in new
budget authority and $264,968,000,000 in outlays; and
(B) for the nondefense category $230,988,000,000 in
new budget authority and $273,644,000,000 in outlays;
(2) with respect to fiscal year 1998—
(A) for the defense category $268,971,000,000 in new
budget authority and $263,862,000,000 in outlays; and
(B) for the nondefense category $224,746,000,000 in
new budget authority and $263,093,000,000 in outlays;
(3) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the discretionary
category $491,268,000,000 in new budget authority and
$525,485,000,000 in outlays;
H. Con. Res.178—24
(4) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the discretionary
category $498,589,000,000 in new budget authority and
$525,251,000,000 in outlays;
(5) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the discretionary
category $491,117,000,000 in new budget authority and
$516,223,000,000 in outlays; and
(6) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the discretionary
category $500,592,000,000 in new budget authority and
$514,219,000,000 in outlays;
as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and emergency
appropriations.
(b) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall not be in order in the Senate to consider—
(A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 (or amend-
ment, motion, or conference report on such a resolution)
that provides discretionary spending in excess of the sum
of the defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits
for such fiscal year;
(B) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, motion,
or conference report on such a resolution) that provides
discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary spend-
ing limit for such fiscal year; or
(C) any appropriation bill or resolution (or amendment,
motion, or conference report on such appropriation bill
or resolution) for fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,
or 2002 that would exceed any of the discretionary spending
limits in this section or suballocations of those limits made
pursuant to section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974.
(2) EXCEPTION.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—This section shall not apply if a
declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a
joint resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has
been enacted.
(B) ENFORCEMENT
OF
DISCRETIONARY
LIMITS
IN
FY
1997.—Until the enactment of reconciliation legislation
pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 202
of this resolution and for purposes of the application of
paragraph (1), only subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall
apply, and it shall apply only for fiscal year 1997.
(c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn.
(d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the
Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited
to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
appellant and the manager of the concurrent resolution, bill, or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall
be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For purposes of sub-
section (b), the levels of new budget authority and outlays for
H. Con. Res.178—25
a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made
by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
SEC. 302. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT
ASSETS.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged
the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private
sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget defi-
cit;
(2) the President’s fiscal year 1997 budget included
$3,900,000,000 in receipts from asset sales and proposed a
change in the asset sale scoring rule to allow the proceeds
from these sales to be scored;
(3) assets should not be sold if such sale would increase
the budget deficit over the long run; and
(4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be repealed
and consideration should be given to replacing it with a meth-
odology that takes into account the long-term budgetary impact
of asset sales.
(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—(1) For the purposes of any
concurrent resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, amounts realized from sales of assets shall be scored
with respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.
(2) 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.
(3) For purposes of this section, the sale of loan assets or
the prepayment of a loan shall be governed by the terms of the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
SEC. 303. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF DIRECT STUDENT LOANS.
For the purposes of any concurrent resolution on the budget
and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of a direct
loan under the Federal direct student loan program shall be the
net present value, at the time when the direct loan is disbursed,
of the following cash flows for the estimated life of the loan—
(1) loan disbursements;
(2) repayments of principal;
(3) payments of interest and other payments by or to the
Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for esti-
mated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other recover-
ies; and
(4) direct expenses, including—
(A) activities related to credit extension, loan origina-
tion, loan servicing, management of contractors, and pay-
ments to contractors, other government entities, and pro-
gram participants;
(B) collection of delinquent loans; and
(C) writeoff and closeout of loans.
SEC. 304. SUPERFUND RESERVE FUND.
(a) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS IN THE HOUSE.—
(1) COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.—In the House of Representa-
tives—
(A) after the enactment of a superfund bill that reforms
the Superfund program to facilitate the clean up of hazard-
ous waste sites and extends Superfund taxes; and
H. Con. Res.178—26
(B) upon the reporting of an appropriation measure
(or submission of a conference report thereon) that appro-
priates funds for the Superfund program in excess of
$1,302,000,000;
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of that House
may submit revised allocations, functional levels, budget aggre-
gates, and discretionary spending limits to carry out this section
by an amount not to exceed the excess subject to the limitation.
These revisions shall be considered for the purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations, levels,
aggregates, and limits contained in this resolution.
(2) COMMITTEE
SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on
Appropriations of 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 following the revision of allocations to that committee
pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments under this subsection
shall not exceed the lesser of—
(A) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year resulting
from the enactment of legislation that extends Superfund
taxes; or
(B) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal year
and the outlays flowing from such budget authority in
all fiscal years.
(3) READJUSTMENTS.—In the House of Representatives, any
adjustments made under this subsection for any appropriations
measure or any conference report thereon may be readjusted
if that measure is not enacted into law.
(b) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS IN THE SENATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, after the enactment of
legislation that reforms the Superfund program and extends
Superfund taxes, budget authority and outlays allocated to
the Committee on Appropriations under sections 302(a) and
602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
functional levels, the appropriate budget aggregates, and the
discretionary spending limits in section 201 of this resolution
may be revised to provide additional budget authority and
the outlays flowing from that budget authority for the
Superfund program, pursuant to this subsection.
(2) DEFICIT NEUTRAL ADJUSTMENTS.—
(A) ALLOCATIONS.—
(i) COMMITTEE ALLOCATIONS.—In the Senate, upon
reporting of an appropriations measure, or when a
conference committee submits a conference report
thereon, that appropriates funds for the Superfund
program in excess of $1,302,000,000, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may submit
revised allocations, functional levels, budget aggre-
gates, and discretionary spending limits to carry out
this section that adds to such allocations, levels, aggre-
gates, and limits an amount that is equal to such
excess. These revised allocations, levels, aggregates,
and limits shall be considered for the purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as the allocations,
levels, aggregates, and limits contained in this resolu-
tion.
H. Con. Res.178—27
(ii) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate may report appro-
priately revised suballocations pursuant to sections
302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 following the revision of the allocations
pursuant to clause (i).
(B) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments under this sub-
section shall not exceed—
(i) the net revenue increase for a fiscal year result-
ing from the enactment of legislation that extends
Superfund taxes; and
(ii) $898,000,000 in budget authority for a fiscal
year and the outlays flowing from such budget author-
ity in all fiscal years.
SEC. 305. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, revenue and spending aggre-
gates may be reduced and allocations may be revised for legislation
that reduces revenues by providing family tax relief, fuel tax relief,
and incentives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and
economic growth if such legislation will not increase the deficit
for—
(1) fiscal year 1997;
(2) the period of fiscal years 1997 through 2001; or
(3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—Upon the consideration of legisla-
tion pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately
revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional levels and aggre-
gates to carry out this 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 resolution.
(c) 
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 section.
SEC. 306. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
Congress adopts the provisions of this title—
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, 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 inconsistent 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.
SEC. 307. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ALLOWANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In the House of Representatives for consider-
ation of a conference report, or in the Senate, the fiscal year
1997 outlay allocation made pursuant to sections 302(a) and 602(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committees on
Appropriations, the fiscal year 1997 outlay aggregate, the fiscal
H. Con. Res.178—28
year 1997 discretionary limit on nondefense outlays and other
appropriate aggregates may be increased for a resolution making
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997. These revised alloca-
tions, aggregates, and limits shall be considered for all purposes
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, aggregates,
and limits contained in this resolution and shall remain in effect
for the consideration of any fiscal year 1997 appropriations measure.
(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS.—In the Senate, upon the consider-
ation of a motion to proceed or an agreement to proceed to a
resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997,
or in the House of Representatives, upon the filing of a conference
report thereon, that complies with the fiscal year 1997 discretionary
limit on nondefense budget authority, the Chairman of the Commit-
tee on the Budget of the appropriate House may submit a revised
outlay allocation for such committee and appropriately revised
aggregates and limits to carry out this section.
(c) COMMITTEE SUBALLOCATIONS.—The Committee on Appro-
priations of the appropriate House may report appropriately revised
suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b)(1) and 602(b)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 following the revision of alloca-
tions pursuant to this section.
(d) LIMITATIONS.—The adjustments made under this section
shall not exceed $1,337,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 1997.
TITLE IV—SENSE OF CONGRESS,
HOUSE, AND SENATE PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BASELINES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:
(1) Baselines are projections of future spending if existing
policies remain unchanged.
(2) Under baseline assumptions, spending automatically
rises with inflation even if such increases are not mandated
under existing law.
(3) Baseline budgeting is inherently biased against policies
that would reduce the projected growth in spending because
such policies are depicted as spending reductions from an
increasing baseline.
(4) The baseline concept has encouraged Congress to
abdicate its constitutional obligation to control the public purse
for those programs which are automatically funded.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
baseline budgeting should be replaced with a budgetary model
that requires justification of aggregate funding levels and maximizes
congressional accountability for Federal spending.
SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LOAN SALES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:
(1) The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government have
stated that ‘‘more consideration should be given to the sale
of nonperforming loans held not only by HUD, but by all
Federal agencies that provide credit programs’’ and directed
the Office of Management and Budget to direct Federal agencies
to evaluate the value of their credit programs and develop
a plan for the privatization of such credit programs.
H. Con. Res.178—29
(2) The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies has directed
that the Small Business Administration should study and
report to Congress on the feasibility of private servicing of
SBA loan activities.
(3) The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agri-
culture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies previously directed the Farmers Home
Administration to ‘‘explore the potential savings that might
occur from contract centralized servicing’’.
(4) The Committee on Agriculture of the House has consist-
ently urged the Secretary of Agriculture to explore contracting
out loan servicing operations.
(5) The General Accounting Office has found that ‘‘Allowing
the public and private sectors to compete for the centralized
servicing (of loans) could mean reaping the benefits of the
competitive marketplace—greater efficiency, increased focus on
customer needs, increased innovation, and improved morale.’’.
(6) The House Committee on Small Business has rec-
ommended ‘‘that 40 percent of the loan servicing portfolio (for
Disaster Loans) be privatized’’.
(7) The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 1997 proposes
to review options for improving the quality of loan portfolio
management including contracting to the private sector.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate should
report legislation authorizing the sale of such loan assets as they
deem appropriate in order to contribute to Government downsizing,
administrative cost savings, and improved services to borrowers.
SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CHANGES IN MEDICAID.
It is the sense of Congress that any legislation changing the
medicaid program pursuant to this resolution should—
(1) guarantee coverage for low-income children, pregnant
women, the elderly, and the disabled as described in the
National Governors’ Association February 6, 1996, policy on
reforming medicaid, which was endorsed unanimously by our
Nation’s Governors;
(2) maintain the medicaid program as a matching program
while providing a fairer and more equitable formula for calculat-
ing the matching rate;
(3) reject any illusory financing schemes;
(4) continue existing law for Federal minimum quality
standards for nursing homes and the enforcement of those
standards;
(5) continue Federal rules that prevent wives or husbands
from being required to impoverish themselves in order to obtain
and keep medicaid benefits for their spouse requiring nursing
home care and continue existing prohibitions against the States
requiring the adult children of institutionalized patients from
having to contribute to the cost of nursing facility services;
and
(6) provide coverage of medicare premiums and cost-sharing
payments for low-income seniors consistent with the unanimous
National Governors’ Association medicaid policy.
H. Con. Res.178—30
SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON CHIL-
DREN.
(a) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
Congress should not adopt or enact any legislation that will increase
the number of children who are hungry, homeless, poor, or medically
uninsured.
(b) LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IMPACT ON CHILDREN.—
In the event legislation enacted to comply with this resolution
results in an increase in the number of hungry, homeless, poor,
or medically uninsured by the end of fiscal year 1997, Congress
shall revisit the provisions of such legislation which caused such
increase and shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, adopt legisla-
tion which would halt any continuation of such increase.
SEC. 405. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEBT REPAYMENT.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) Congress has a basic moral and ethical responsibility
to future generations to repay the Federal debt;
(2) Congress should enact a plan that balances the budget
and also develop a regimen for paying off the Federal debt;
(3) after the budget is balanced, a surplus should be created
which can be used to begin paying off the debt; and
(4) such a plan should be formulated and implemented
so that this generation can save future generations from the
crushing burdens of the Federal debt.
SEC. 406. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMITMENT TO A BALANCED
BUDGET BY FISCAL YEAR 2002.
It is the sense of Congress that the President and Congress
should continue to adhere to the statutory commitment made by
both parties on November 20, 1995, to enact legislation to achieve
a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated
by the Congressional Budget Office.
SEC. 407. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT TAX REDUCTIONS SHOULD BENE-
FIT WORKING FAMILIES.
It is the sense of Congress that this concurrent resolution
on the budget assumes any reductions in taxes should be structured
to benefit working families by providing family tax relief and incen-
tives to stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic
growth.
SEC. 408. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON
THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) the Trustees of Medicare have concluded that ‘‘the Medi-
care program is clearly unsustainable in its present form’’;
(2) the Trustees of Medicare concluded in 1995 that ‘‘the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays inpatient hospital
expenses, will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years
and is severely out of financial balance in the long range’’;
(3) preliminary data made available to Congress indicate
that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will go bankrupt in
the year 2001, rather than the year 2002, as predicted last
year;
(4) the Public Trustees of Medicare have concluded that
‘‘the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund shows a
rate of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable’’;
H. Con. Res.178—31
(5) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax
Reform concluded that, absent long-term changes in Medicare,
projected Medicare outlays will increase from about 4 percent
of the payroll tax base today to over 15 percent of the payroll
tax base by the year 2030;
(6) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax
Reform recommended, by a vote of 30 to 1, that spending
and revenues available for Medicare must be brought into
long-term balance; and
(7) in the most recent Trustees’ report, the Public Trustees
of Medicare ‘‘strongly recommend that the crisis presented by
the financial condition of the Medicare trust funds be urgently
addressed on a comprehensive basis, including a review of
the program’s financing methods, benefit provisions, and deliv-
ery mechanisms’’.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
in order to meet the aggregates and levels in this budget resolu-
tion—
(1) a special bipartisan commission should be established
immediately to make recommendations concerning the most
appropriate response to the short-term solvency and long-term
sustainability issues facing the Medicare program which do
not include tax increases in any form, including transfers of
spending from the Medicare Part A program to the Part B
program; and
(2) the commission should report to Congress its rec-
ommendations prior to the adoption of a concurrent budget
resolution for fiscal year 1998 in order that the committees
of jurisdiction may consider these recommendations in fashion-
ing an appropriate congressional response.
SEC. 409. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MEDICARE TRANSFERS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) home health care provides a broad spectrum of health
and social services to approximately 3,500,000 Medicare bene-
ficiaries in the comfort of their homes;
(2) the President has proposed reimbursing the first 100
home health care visits after a hospital stay through Medicare
Part A and reimbursing all other visits through Medicare Part
B, shifting responsibility for $55,000,000,000 of spending from
the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to the general revenues
that pay for Medicare Part B;
(3) such a transfer does nothing to control Medicare spend-
ing, and is merely a bookkeeping change which artificially
extends the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund;
(4) this transfer of funds camouflages the need to make
changes in the Medicare program to ensure the long-term sol-
vency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which the Congres-
sional Budget Office now states will become bankrupt in the
year 2001, a year earlier than projected in the 1995 report
by the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust
Funds;
(5) Congress will be breaking a commitment to the Amer-
ican people if it does not act to ensure the solvency of the
entire Medicare program in both the short- and long-term;
(6) the President’s proposal would force those in need of
chronic care services to rely upon the availability of general
H. Con. Res.178—32
revenues to provide financing for these services, making them
more vulnerable to benefits changes than under current law;
and
(7) according to the National Association of Home Care,
shifting Medicare home care payments from Part A to Part
B would deemphasize the importance of home care by eliminat-
ing its status as part of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund,
thereby undermining access to the less costly form of care.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
in meeting the spending targets specified in the budget resolution,
Congress should not accept the President’s proposal to transfer
spending from one part of Medicare to another in its efforts to
preserve, protect, and improve the Medicare program.
SEC. 410. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CHANGES IN THE MEDI-
CARE PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that, in achieving the spending
levels specified in this resolution—
(1) the Public Trustees of Medicare have concluded that
‘‘the Medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present
form’’;
(2) the President has said his goal is to keep the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund solvent for more than a decade,
but his budget transfers $55,000,000,000 of home health spend-
ing from Medicare Part A to Medicare Part B;
(3) the transfer of home health spending threatens the
delivery of home health services to 3.5 million Medicare bene-
ficiaries;
(4) such a transfer increases the burden on general reve-
nues, including income taxes paid by working Americans, by
$55,000,000,000;
(5) such a transfer artificially inflates the solvency of the
Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, misleading Congress,
Medicare beneficiaries, and working taxpayers;
(6) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has
certified that, without such a transfer, the President’s budget
extends the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
for only one additional year; and
(7) without misleading transfers, the President’s budget
therefore fails to achieve his own stated goal for the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that,
in achieving the spending levels specified in this resolution, Con-
gress assumes that Congress would—
(1) keep the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund sol-
vent for more than a decade, as recommended by the President;
and
(2) accept the President’s proposed level of Medicare Part
B savings over the period 1997 through 2002; but would
(3) reject the President’s proposal to transfer home health
spending from one part of Medicare to another, which threatens
the delivery of home health care services to 3.5 million Medicare
beneficiaries, artificially inflates the solvency of the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and increases the burden on
general revenues, including income taxes paid by working
Americans, by $55,000,000,000.
H. Con. Res.178—33
SEC. 411. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) Corporations and individuals have clear responsibility
to adhere to environmental laws. When they do not, and
environmental damage results, the Federal and State govern-
ments may impose fines and penalties, and assess polluters
for the cost of remediation.
(2) Assessment of these costs is important in the enforce-
ment process. They appropriately penalize wrongdoing. They
discourage future environmental damage. They ensure that
taxpayers do not bear the financial brunt of cleaning up after
damages done by polluters.
(3) In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in
Prince William Sound, Alaska, for example, the corporate settle-
ment with the Federal Government totaled $900,000,000.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
assumptions in this resolution assume an appropriate amount of
revenues per year through legislation that will not allow deductions
for fines and penalties arising from a failure to comply with Federal
or State environmental or health protection laws.
SEC. 412. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
The assumptions underlying functional totals in this budget
resolution include:
(1) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that:
(A) Violence against women is the leading cause of
physical injury to women. The Department of Justice esti-
mates that over 1 million violent crimes against women
are committed by domestic partners annually.
(B) Domestic violence dramatically affects the victim’s
ability to participate in the workforce. A University of
Minnesota survey reported that one-quarter of battered
women surveyed had lost a job partly because of being
abused and that over half of these women had been har-
assed by their abuser at work.
(C) Domestic violence is often intensified as women
seek to gain economic independence through attending
school or job training programs. Batterers have been
reported to prevent women from attending such programs
or sabotage their efforts at self-improvement.
(D) Nationwide surveys of service providers prepared
by the Taylor Institute of Chicago, document, for the first
time, the interrelationship between domestic violence and
welfare by showing that between 50 percent and 80 percent
of women in welfare-to-work programs are current or past
victims of domestic violence.
(E) The American Psychological Association has
reported that violence against women is usually witnessed
by their children, who as a result can suffer severe psycho-
logical, cognitive and physical damage and some studies
have found that children who witness violence in their
homes have a greater propensity to commit violent acts
in their homes and communities when they become adults.
(F) Over half of the women surveyed by the Taylor
Institute stayed with their batterers because they lacked
the resources to support themselves and their children.
The surveys also found that the availability of economic
H. Con. Res.178—34
support is a critical factor in women’s ability to leave
abusive situations that threaten themselves and their chil-
dren.
(G) Proposals to restructure the welfare programs may
impact the availability of the economic support and the
safety net necessary to enable poor women to flee abuse
without risking homelessness and starvation for their fami-
lies.
(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that:
(A) No welfare reform provision should be enacted
by Congress unless and until Congress considers whether
such welfare reform provisions would exacerbate violence
against women and their children, further endanger wom-
en’s lives, make it more difficult for women to escape
domestic violence, or further punish women victimized by
violence.
(B) Any welfare reform measure enacted by Congress
should require that any welfare-to-work, education, or job
placement programs implemented by the States address
the impact of domestic violence on welfare recipients.
SEC. 413. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING STUDENT LOANS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) over the last 60 years, education and advancements
in knowledge have accounted for 37 percent of our Nation’s
economic growth;
(2) a college degree significantly increases job stability,
resulting in an unemployment rate among college graduates
less than half that of those with high school diplomas;
(3) a person with a bachelor’s degree will average 50–
55 percent more in lifetime earnings than a person with a
high school diploma;
(4) education is a key to providing alternatives to crime
and violence, and is a cost-effective strategy for breaking cycles
of poverty and moving welfare recipients to work;
(5) a highly educated populace is necessary to the effective
functioning of democracy and to a growing economy, and the
opportunity to gain a college education helps advance the Amer-
ican ideals of progress and social equality;
(6) a highly educated and flexible work force is an essential
component of economic growth and competitiveness;
(7) for many families, Federal Student Aid programs make
the difference in the ability of students to attend college;
(8) in 1994, nearly 6 million postsecondary students
received some kind of financial assistance to help them pay
for the costs of schooling;
(9) since 1988, college costs have risen by 54 percent,
and student borrowing has increased by 219 percent;
(10) in fiscal year 1996, the Balanced Budget Act achieved
savings without reducing student loan limits or increasing fees
to students or parents; and
(11) under this budget resolution student loans will
increase from $26.6 billion today to $37.4 billion in 2002; the
Congressional Budget Office projects that these are the exact
same levels that would occur under President Clinton’s student
loan policies.
H. Con. Res.178—35
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
the aggregates and functional levels included in this budget resolu-
tion assume that savings in student loans can be achieved without
any program change that would increase costs to students and
parents or decrease accessibility to student loans.
SEC. 414. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL CHARGES
UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) senior citizens must spend more than 1 dollar in 5
of their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need;
(2) 2⁄3 of spending under the Medicare program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act is for senior citizens with
annual incomes of less than $15,000;
(3) fee-for-service cost increases have forced higher out-
of-pocket costs for seniors; and
(4) the current Medicare managed care experience has dem-
onstrated that Medicare HMO enrollees face lower out-of-pocket
costs when they join HMO’s in competitive markets; also, over
one half of these enrollees pay no Medicare premiums and
receive extra benefits free of charge, such as prescription drugs
and eye glasses, due to competitive market forces.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
any reconciliation bill considered during the second session of the
104th Congress should maintain Medicare beneficiaries right to
remain in the current Medicare fee-for-service program and also
should maintain the existing prohibitions against additional charges
by providers under the Medicare fee-for-service program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (‘‘balance billing’’), and that Medi-
care beneficiaries should be offered the greatest opportunity possible
to choose private plans that will offer lower out-of-pocket costs
than what they currently pay in the Medicare fee-for-service pro-
gram, and to choose a health care delivery option that best meets
their needs.
SEC. 415. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS THAT
WELFARE RECIPIENTS BE DRUG-FREE.
In recognition of the fact that American workers are required
to be drug-free in the workplace, it is the sense of Congress that
this concurrent resolution on the budget assumes that the States
may require welfare recipients to be drug-free as a condition for
receiving such benefits and that random drug testing may be used
to enforce such requirements.
SEC. 416. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AN ACCURATE INDEX FOR INFLA-
TION.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) a significant portion of Federal expenditures and reve-
nues are indexed to measurements of inflation;
(2) a variety of inflation indices exist which vary according
to the accuracy with which such indices measure increases
in the cost of living; and
(3) Federal Government usage of inflation indices which
overstate true inflation has the demonstrated effect of accelerat-
ing Federal spending, increasing the Federal budget deficit,
increasing Federal borrowing, and thereby enlarging the pro-
jected burden on future American taxpayers.
H. Con. Res.178—36
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
the assumptions underlying this budget resolution include that
all Federal spending and revenues which are indexed for inflation
should be calibrated by the most accurate inflation indices which
are available to the Federal Government.
SEC. 417. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE 1993 INCOME TAX INCREASE
ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE REPEALED.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) the fiscal year 1994 budget proposal of President Clinton
to raise Federal income taxes on the Social Security benefits
of senior citizens with income as low as $25,000, and those
provisions of the fiscal year 1994 recommendations of the
Budget Resolution and the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act in which the One Hundred Third Congress voted to raise
Federal income taxes on the Social Security benefits of senior
citizens with income as low as $34,000 should be repealed;
(2) President Clinton has stated that he believes he raised
Federal taxes too much in 1993; and
(3) the budget resolution should react to President Clinton’s
fiscal year 1997 budget which documents the fact that in the
history of the United States, the total tax burden has never
been greater than it is today.
(b) SENSE
OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
the assumptions underlying this resolution include—
(1) that raising Federal income taxes in 1993 on the Social
Security benefits of middle-class individuals with income as
low as $34,000 was a mistake;
(2) that the Federal income tax hike on Social Security
benefits imposed in 1993 by the One Hundred Third Congress
and signed into law by President Clinton should be repealed;
and
(3) President Clinton should work with Congress to repeal
the 1993 Federal income tax hike on Social Security benefits
in a manner that would not adversely affect the Social Security
Trust Fund or the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, and should
ensure that such repeal is coupled with offsetting reductions
in Federal spending.
SEC. 418. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION’S
PRACTICE REGARDING THE PROSECUTION OF DRUG
SMUGGLERS.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—
(1) drug use is devastating to the Nation, particularly
among juveniles, and has led juveniles to become involved
in interstate gangs and to participate in violent crime;
(2) drug use has experienced a dramatic resurgence among
our youth;
(3) the number of youths aged 12–17 using marijuana
has increased from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994,
and the category of ‘‘recent marijuana use’’ increased a stagger-
ing 200 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds over the same period;
(4) since 1992, there has been a 52 percent jump in the
number of high school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis,
even as worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of
drug use;
(5) 1 in 3 high school students uses marijuana;