H. Con. Res. 218—11
(B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $242,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(13) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security
Act, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund:
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $56,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $65,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $73,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $81,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $92,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $220,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $221,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $235,000,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 218—12
(B) Outlays, $229,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $249,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $261,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $253,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $273,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 218—13
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$32,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$27,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$25,300,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $18,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $21,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $23,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $24,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 218—14
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $247,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $267,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,200,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $282,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $282,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $298,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $298,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
H. Con. Res. 218—15
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $315,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $315,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(20) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security
Act, Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, $257,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, $278,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, $293,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, $309,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $309,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, $325,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $325,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(21) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the public
debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 1995: $311,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 1996: $331,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 1997: $347,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 1998: $365,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 1999: $384,100,000,000.
(22) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$6,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$4,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$3,900,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 218—16
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$4,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$3,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$7,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$7,100,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$8,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$11,000,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$44,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$44,700,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$30,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$30,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$30,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$30,500,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$31,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$31,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$31,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$31,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
(24) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security
Act, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 1995:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$42,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$42,200,000,000.
H. Con. Res. 218—17
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1996:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$27,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$27,300,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1997:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$27,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$27,800,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1998:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$28,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$28,400,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
Fiscal year 1999:
(A) New budget authority, ¥$28,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, ¥$28,600,000,000.
(C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
(D) New primary loan guarantee commitments,
$0.
TITLE II—BUDGETARY PROCEDURES
SEC. 21. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.
(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress
that—
(1) from time to time the United States Government should
sell assets; and
(2) the amounts realized from such asset sales will not
recur on an annual basis and do not reduce the demand for
credit.
(b) BUDGETARY TREATMENT.—For purposes of points of order
under this concurrent resolution and the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the amounts realized from
sales of assets (other than loan assets) shall not be scored with
respect to the level of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ‘‘sale of an asset’’ shall have the same meaning
as under section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-
gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as amended by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990); and
(2) the term shall not include asset sales mandated by
law before September 18, 1987, and routine, ongoing asset
sales at levels consistent with agency operations in fiscal year
1986.
(d) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (c) of this section shall
expire September 30, 1998.
(e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 8 of House Concurrent
Resolution 64 (103d Congress), section 8 of House Concurrent Reso-
H. Con. Res. 218—18
lution 287 (102d Congress), section 7 of House Concurrent Resolu-
tion 121 (102d Congress), section 5 of House Concurrent Resolution
310 (101st Congress), section 6 of House Concurrent Resolution
106 (101st Congress), section 4 of House Concurrent Resolution
268 (100th Congress), and sections 7 and 8 of House Concurrent
Resolution 93 (100th Congress) are repealed.
SEC. 22. SOCIAL SECURITY FIRE WALL POINT OF ORDER IN THE
SENATE.
(a) APPLICATION
OF
SECTION
301(i).—Notwithstanding any
other rule of the Senate, in the Senate, the point of order established
under section 301(i) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall
apply to any concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal
year (as reported and as amended), amendments thereto, or any
conference report thereon.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 10(b) of House Concur-
rent Resolution 64 (103d Congress) and section 12(b) of House
Concurrent Resolution 287 (102d Congress) are repealed.
SEC. 23. ENFORCING PAY-AS-YOU-GO.
(a) PURPOSE.—The Senate declares that it is essential to—
(1) ensure continued compliance with the deficit reduction
embodied in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993;
and
(2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement system.
(b) POINT OF ORDER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any direct-spending or receipts legislation (as
defined in paragraph (3)) that would increase the deficit for
any one of the three applicable time periods (as defined in
paragraph (2)) as measured pursuant to paragraphs (4) and
(5).
(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS.—For purposes of this sub-
section, the term ‘‘applicable time period’’ means any one of
the three following periods—
(A) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently
adopted concurrent resolution on the budget;
(B) the period of the 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget;
or
(C) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the first
5 years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(3) DIRECT-SPENDING OR RECEIPTS LEGISLATION.—For pur-
poses of this subsection, the term ‘‘direct-spending or receipts
legislation’’ shall—
(A) include any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report to which this subsection other-
wise applies;
(B) exclude concurrent resolutions on the budget;
(C) exclude full funding of, and continuation of, the
deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the
date of enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990;
(D) exclude emergency provisions so designated under
section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Defi-
cit Control Act of 1985;
(E) include the estimated amount of savings in direct-
spending programs applicable to that fiscal year resulting
H. Con. Res. 218—19
from the prior year’s sequestration under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, if any
(except for any amounts sequestered as a result of a net
deficit increase in the fiscal year immediately preceding
the prior fiscal year); and
(F) except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
include all direct-spending legislation as that term is inter-
preted for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) BASELINE.—Estimates prepared pursuant to this section
shall use the baseline used for the most recent concurrent
resolution on the budget, and for years beyond those covered
by that concurrent resolution, shall abide by the requirements
of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, except that references to ‘‘outyears’’ in
that section shall be deemed to apply to any year (other than
the budget year) covered by any one of the time periods defined
in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(5) PRIOR
SURPLUS
AVAILABLE.—If direct-spending or
receipts legislation increases the deficit when taken individually
(as a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report, as the case may be), then it must also increase the
deficit when taken together with all direct-spending and
receipts legislation enacted after the date of enactment of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, in order to violate
the prohibition of this subsection.
(c) WAIVER.—This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn.
(d) APPEALS.—Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the
Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited
to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution, as the
case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members
of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point
of order raised under this section.
(e) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts
for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(f) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 12 of House Concurrent
Resolution 64 (103d Congress) is repealed.
(g) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Notwithstanding section 275(b)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(as amended by sections 13112(b) and 13208(b)(3) of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990), the second sentence of section 904(c)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (except insofar as it relates
to section 313 of that Act) and the final sentence of section 904(d)
of that Act (except insofar as it relates to section 313 of that
Act) shall continue to have effect as rules of the Senate through
(but no later than) September 30, 1998.
(h) SUNSET.—Subsections (a) through (e) of this section shall
expire September 30, 1998.
SEC. 24. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.—
H. Con. Res. 218—20
(1) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of enforcing this section
in the Senate, the discretionary spending limits in section
601(a)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as
adjusted) are reduced by the following amounts—
(A) with respect to fiscal year 1996, $4,000,000,000
in budget authority and $5,400,000,000 in outlays;
(B) with respect to fiscal year 1997, $10,700,000,000
in budget authority and $2,400,000,000 in outlays; and
(C) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $4,100,000,000
in budget authority and $500,000,000 in outlays.
(2) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.—(A) Except as provided
in subparagraph (B), it shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 1996, 1997, or 1998 (or amendment or motion on such
a resolution) that recommends discretionary spending levels
for the first fiscal year covered by that resolution that would
exceed the discretionary spending limits as reduced in this
section.
(B) This subsection 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) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS.—For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues
for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
SEC. 25. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.
(a)(1) ADJUSTMENTS.—For purposes of points of order under
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
and concurrent resolutions on the budget—
(A) the discretionary spending limits under section
601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively adjusted)
for the current fiscal year and each outyear;
(B) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations
under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act;
(C) the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; and
(D) the maximum deficit amount under section 601(a)(1)
of that Act (and that amount as cumulatively adjusted) for
the current fiscal year,
shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of additional new budget
authority or additional outlays (as defined in paragraph (2))
reported by the Committee on Appropriations in appropriations
Acts (or by the committee of conference on such legislation) for
the Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative activities in
H. Con. Res. 218—21
any fiscal year, but not to exceed in any fiscal year $405,000,000
in new budget authority and $405,000,000 in outlays.
(2) ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS.—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 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 1995.
(b) REVISED LIMITS, ALLOCATIONS, AND AGGREGATES.—Upon
the reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and again
upon the submission of a conference report on such legislation
(if a conference report is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate or the House of Representatives (as
the case may be) shall submit to that Chairman’s respective 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 Committees on Appropriations under
sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act;
(3) appropriate budgetary aggregates in the most recently
agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; and
(4) maximum deficit amount under section 601(a)(1) of
that Act (and that amount as cumulatively adjusted) for the
current fiscal year,
to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary spending
limits, allocations, and aggregates shall be considered for purposes
of congressional enforcement under 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 Treasury Depart-
ment 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 Treasury Department 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 section.
(2) This section shall not apply to any additional new
budget authority or additional outlays unless—
(A) in the Senate, the Chairman of the Budget Commit-
tee certifies, based upon information from the Congres-
sional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, and
the Internal Revenue Service (as well as from any other
sources he deems 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 initia-
tive activities.
H. Con. Res. 218—22
SEC. 26. ADJUSTMENTS FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) In the House of Representatives, if health care reform
legislation is reported (including by a committee of conference),
budget authority, outlays, and new entitlement authority shall be
allocated to committees, and the total levels of budget authority,
outlays, and revenues shall be adjusted, to reflect such legislation
if the legislation in the form in which it will be considered would
not increase the total deficit for the period of fiscal years 1995
through 1999.
(b) Upon reporting of legislation described in subsection (a)
and again upon submission of a conference report on such legisla-
tion, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives shall publish in the Congressional Record revised
allocations under section 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 and revised levels of total budget authority, outlays, and
revenues to carry out this section. In the House of Representatives,
such allocations and totals shall be considered as the allocations
and aggregates under this resolution.
SEC. 27. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.
(a)(1) BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS.—In the
Senate, budget authority and outlays may be allocated (as provided
under subsection (c)) to a committee (or committees) for direct-
spending legislation that increases funding for any of the purposes
described in subsection (b)(1) within that committee’s jurisdiction,
if, to the extent that this concurrent resolution on the budget
does not include the costs of that legislation, the enactment of
that legislation will not increase (by virtue of either contempora-
neous or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this
resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
(2) BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS AND REVE-
NUE AGGREGATES.—In the Senate, budget authority and outlays
may be allocated to a committee (or committees) and the revenue
aggregates may be reduced (as provided under subsection (c)) for
direct-spending or receipts legislation in furtherance of any of the
purposes described in subsection (b)(2) within that committee’s
jurisdiction, if, to the extent that this concurrent resolution on
the budget does not include the costs of that legislation, the enact-
ment of that legislation will not increase (by virtue of either contem-
poraneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this
resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
(3) OUTLAY-NEUTRAL BUDGET AUTHORITY ALLOCATIONS.—In the
Senate, budget authority may be allocated (as provided under sub-
section (c)) to a committee (or committees) for any direct-spending
legislation within that committee’s jurisdiction, if, to the extent
that this concurrent resolution on the budget does not include
the costs of that legislation, the enactment of that legislation will
not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously
passed outlay reductions) the deficit or aggregate outlays in this
resolution for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
H. Con. Res. 218—23
(b)(1) PURPOSES UNDER SUBSECTION (a)(1).—Budget authority
and outlay allocations may be revised under subsection (a)(1) for
legislation—
(A) to provide comprehensive training or job search assist-
ance (including reemployment or job training programs or
dislocated worker programs), or to reform unemployment com-
pensation, or to provide for other related programs;
(B) to preserve or rebuild the United States maritime
industry;
(C) to reform the financing of Federal elections; or
(D) to reform the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
(2) PURPOSES UNDER SUBSECTION (a)(2).—Budget authority and
outlay allocations may be revised or the revenue floor reduced
under subsection (a)(2) for—
(A) legislation to improve the well-being of families through
welfare or other reforms (including promoting self-sufficiency
through improvements in job training or employment pro-
grams), to provide for services to support or protect children
(including assuring increased parental support for children
through improvements in the child support enforcement pro-
gram), or to improve the health, nutrition, or care of children;
(B) to make continuing improvements in ongoing health
care programs, to provide for comprehensive health care reform,
to control health care costs, or to accomplish other health
care reforms;
(C) trade-related legislation (including legislation to imple-
ment the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade or to extend the Generalized System of Preferences);
(D) reforms relating to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Cor-
poration (including legislation to improve the funding of govern-
ment-insured pension plans, to protect plan participants, or
to limit growth in exposure of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation) or other employee benefit-related legislation;
(E) reforms relating to providing for simplified collection
of employment taxes on domestic services;
(F) reforms to consolidate the supervision of depository
institutions insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act;
or
(G) initiatives to preserve United States energy security.
(c) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—
(1) UPON REPORTING.—Upon the reporting of legislation
pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission
of a conference report on that legislation (if a conference report
is submitted), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
of the Senate may submit to the Senate appropriately revised
allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 and revised aggregates to carry
out this section.
(2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AMENDMENTS.—If the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget submits an adjustment under
this section for legislation in furtherance of the purpose
described in subsection (b)(2)(B), upon the offering of an amend-
ment to that legislation that would necessitate such a submis-
sion, the chairman shall submit to the Senate appropriately
revised allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised aggregates, if
H. Con. Res. 218—24
the enactment of that legislation (as proposed to be amended)
will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or pre-
viously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this resolution
for—
(A) fiscal year 1995; or
(B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
(d) EFFECT
OF REVISED ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.—
Revised allocations and aggregates submitted under subsection (c)
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in this concur-
rent resolution on the budget.
(e) 
REPORTING
REVISED
SUBDIVISIONS.—The 
appropriate
committee may report appropriately revised subdivisions of alloca-
tions pursuant to sections 302(b)(2) and 602(b)(2) of the Congres-
sional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.
SEC. 28. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The 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.
TITLE III—SENSE OF CONGRESS
PROVISIONS
SEC. 31. CONTROLLING GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENT OR MANDATORY
SPENDING.
It is the sense of the Congress that legislation should be enacted
providing enforceable limits to control the growth of entitlement
or mandatory spending.
SEC. 32. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN
BUDGET PROCESS LEGISLATION.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the follow-
ing legislation should be enacted:
(1) Legislation providing enforceable limits to control the
growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
(2) Amendments to the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
to establish a regular procedure to provide assistance for disas-
ters and other emergencies without adding to the deficit.
(3) Legislation granting the President expedited rescission
authority over appropriations measures, as provided by H.R.
1578, as passed the House.
SEC. 33. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONTROLLING NON-SOCIAL SECU-
RITY MANDATORY SPENDING.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should—
H. Con. Res. 218—25
(1) after enacting health care reform legislation, enact
annual caps to control the growth of entitlement or mandatory
spending;
(2) include within these caps all mandatory spending pro-
grams except Social Security, deposit insurance, and net
interest;
(3) provide that these caps shall be set so that programs
providing benefits to individuals may grow for inflation, changes
in the numbers of beneficiaries, and an additional growth allow-
ance;
(4) provide that these caps shall be adjusted annually in
the President’s budget for changes in inflation and the number
of beneficiaries since Congress enacted the caps (excluding any
changes due to legislation);
(5) provide an enforcement mechanism in the event that
total mandatory spending exceeds the caps; and
(6) enact caps on tax expenditures similar to those for
mandatory spending so as to ensure that reductions in Federal
spending for mandatory programs are not achieved by shifting
spending to tax expenditures.
SEC. 34. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE BUDGETARY
ACCOUNTING OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) the Congress should measure the costs and benefits
of all health care reform legislation against a uniform set
of economic and technical assumptions;
(2) before enacting major changes in the health care system,
the Congress should have available to it reliable estimates
of the costs of competing plans prepared in a comparable man-
ner; and
(3) the Congress should account for all financial trans-
actions associated with Federal health care reform legislation.
SEC. 35. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the Federal Government is solely responsible for setting
and enforcing national immigration policy;
(2) the Federal Government has not adequately enforced
immigration laws;
(3) this weak enforcement has imposed financial costs on
State and local governments;
(4) the Federal Government has failed to investigate and
prosecute Federal wage and hour violations, thus creating
incentives to hire persons illegally in the United States and
exacerbating the problem of illegal immigration;
(5) States must incur costs for incarcerating undocumented
persons convicted of State and local crimes, educating undocu-
mented children, providing emergency medical services to
undocumented persons, and providing services incidental to
admission of refugees under the Refugee Admissions and
Resettlement Program; and
(6) the Federal Government has an obligation to reimburse
State and local governments for costs resulting from the costs
described in this subsection.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that,
in setting forth the budget authority and outlay amounts in this
H. Con. Res. 218—26
resolution, the Congress intends that funding should be provided
to reimburse State and local governments for the costs associated
with—
(1) elementary and secondary education for undocumented
children;
(2) emergency medical assistance to undocumented persons;
(3) incarceration and parole of criminal aliens; and
(4) services incidental to admission of refugees under the
Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Program.
SEC. 36. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of Federal
revenues and spending if policies remain unchanged;
(2) baseline budgeting has given rise to the practice of
calculating policy changes from an inflated spending level; and
(3) the baseline concept has been misused to portray poli-
cies that would simply slow down the increase in spending
as spending reductions.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) the President should submit a budget that compares
proposed spending levels for the budget year with the current
year; and
(2) the starting point for deliberations on a budget resolu-
tion should be the current year.
SEC. 37. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED FEDERAL
MANDATES.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) the Federal Government should not shift the costs of
administering Federal programs to State and local govern-
ments;
(2) the Federal Government’s share of entitlement pro-
grams should not be capped or otherwise decreased without
providing States authority to amend their financial or pro-
grammatic responsibilities to continue meeting the mandated
service; and
(3) Congress should develop a mechanism to ensure that
costs of mandates are considered during agencies’ development
of regulations and congressional deliberations on legislation.
SEC. 38. CLOSING OF LOOPHOLES IN FOREIGN TAX PROVISIONS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) there is evidence suggesting that foreign-controlled cor-
porations doing business in the United States do not pay their
fair share of taxes;
(2) over 70 percent of foreign-controlled corporations doing
business in the United States pay no Federal income tax;
(3) the United States Department of the Treasury has
limited its ability to protect the revenue base in the case
of cross-border transactions, to the detriment of taxpayers
engaged solely in domestic transactions;
(4) the Department of the Treasury has been using anti-
quated accounting concepts to deal with sophisticated multi-
national corporations;
(5) substantial Federal revenues are lost annually due to
the inability of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce the
H. Con. Res. 218—27
‘‘arm’s length’’ transaction rule, along with substantial amounts
spent on administration and litigation; and
(6) the Federal income tax laws provide a financial incen-
tive for domestic taxpayers to operate abroad by granting them
deferral of United States taxes on income earned abroad.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that
deficit reduction should be achieved, in part, by ending loopholes
and enforcement breakdowns that now foster the underpayment
of taxes on income from cross-border transactions and that subsidize
the flight of domestic businesses and jobs out of the United States,
by means including—
(1) the adoption of a more streamlined and efficient method
of enforcing Federal tax laws involving multinational corpora-
tions, especially those based abroad, and in particular, the
use by the Treasury Department of a formulaic approach in
cases in which the current ‘‘arm’s length’’ transaction rules
do not work; and
(2) a repeal of tax subsidies for domestic businesses that
operate abroad in tax havens and then ship their products
back into the United States.
SEC. 39. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDITURES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that tax expenditures—
(1) are growing significantly;
(2) may have the same effect as direct Federal spending;
and
(3) should be subject to the same level of budgetary review
as direct spending.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) the Congress should consider targets for the growth
in tax expenditures similar to the targets for the growth of
mandatory spending;
(2) any reconciliation instructions included in a budget
resolution should specify these targets; and
(3) such targets should be enforceable separately from any
revenue targets included in the reconciliation instructions.
SEC. 40. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING HEALTH SERVICE
DELIVERY AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE.
It is the sense of the Congress that—
(1) sufficient funding should be provided to the Indian
Health Service to ensure that Indian Health Service hospitals
and outpatient facilities in existence on the date of enactment
of this resolution, and Indian Health Service hospitals and
outpatient facilities scheduled to open during fiscal years 1994,
1995, and 1996, are fully staffed with the appropriate number
of health care professionals needed to meet the health and
medical needs of the American Indians and Alaska Natives
who depend on the Indian Health Service for health care;
and
(2) sufficient funding should be provided to the Indian
Health Service to ensure that the Indian Health Service is
capable of meeting basic public health and safety and sanitation
requirements on Indian lands through timely and proper water
infrastructure construction and upgrades.
H. Con. Res. 218—28
SEC. 41. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL AERO-
NAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.
It is the sense of the Senate that the budget authority and
outlay figures for function 250 in this resolution do not assume
any amounts for the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion for any fiscal year from 1995 through 1999 in excess of the
amounts proposed by the President for such fiscal year.
SEC. 42. MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) the minimum allocation program was established in
1982 to address inequities in the funding formula for Federal-
aid highways;
(2) the minimum allocation program was designed to pro-
vide the greatest degree of flexibility practicable to States that
receive funding under the formula referred to in paragraph
(1) and includes an exemption of the apportionments from
the obligation ceiling;
(3) the minimum allocation program provides additional
flexibility by allowing a State a 4-year period during which
amounts apportioned to the State may be obligated;
(4) the budget of the United States Government for fiscal
year 1995 submitted by the President to Congress proposes
to include minimum allocation apportionments under the
obligation ceiling and also proposes to limit the authority of
States to obligate apportionments under the minimum alloca-
tion program to 67 percent of the amount of the apportionments;
and
(5) States have planned transportation programs on the
basis of the provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, and the amendments made by the Act,
relating to minimum allocation that confirmed core commit-
ments to exemption and flexibility.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) the minimum allocation program should remain exempt
from the obligation ceiling; and
(2) the flexibility of the minimum allocation program should
be an enduring and critical component of the provision of Fed-
eral assistance to States for Federal-aid highways.
(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:
(1) FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS.—The term ‘‘Federal-aid high-
ways’’ has the meaning provided the term in section 101 of
title 23, United States Code.
(2) MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘minimum
allocation program’’ means the program of allocation of funding
to States under section 157 of title 23, United States Code.
(3) OBLIGATION
CEILING.—The term ‘‘obligation ceiling’’
means the obligation ceiling under section 1002 of the Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
SEC. 43. POLICY IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE.
It is the sense of the Congress that levels of spending set
forth in this resolution regarding the International Affairs (150)
budget category include an assumption that the United States
will oppose, consistent with provisions contained in the Freedom
Support Act and the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act of 1994,
attempts by the Russian Federation to intimidate, use military
H. Con. Res. 218—29
force or engage in economic coercion to establish a sphere of influ-
ence over the former republics of the Soviet Union, the Baltics,
or Central and Eastern European nations.
SEC. 44. STAR WARS (BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE).
It is the sense of the Senate that given the Federal budget
deficit, the real reductions in discretionary spending in this resolu-
tion, and the existence of many more worthy programs competing
for this funding, spending for the Star Wars (Ballistic Missile
Defense) must not exceed the fiscal year 1994 appropriated level.
Attest:
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Attest:
Secretary of the Senate.