[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 218, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth 
     the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal 
     years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

  The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from 
the House of Representatives:

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1995.

       The Congress determines and declares that this resolution 
     is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1995, including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, as required by section 301 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 1995, 
     October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998:
       (1) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $977,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,031,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,079,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,136,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,190,200,000,000.

     and the amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.

     and the amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
       (2) The appropriate levels of total new budget authority 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,246,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,308,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,374,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,447,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,531,400,000,000.
       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,225,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,284,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,356,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,419,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,495,000,000,000.
       (4) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $247,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $253,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $276,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $282,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $304,800,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,968,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,293,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,640,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,996,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,367,300,000,000.
       (6) The appropriate levels of total Federal credit activity 
     for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1994, October 1, 
     1995, October 1, 1996, October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $26,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $32,100,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $33,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $35,700,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New direct loan obligations, $37,800,000,000.
       (B) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $163,500,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, new primary loan guarantee commitments, and 
     new secondary loan guarantee commitments for fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $130,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $110,000,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) 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.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $315,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (E) New secondary 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.
       (E) New secondary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 4. HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       (a) 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 
     legislation, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     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. Such allocations and 
     totals shall be considered as the allocations and aggregates 
     under this resolution.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the following 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 
     disasters 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. 6. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET ON SCORING HEALTH 
                   REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Committee on the Budget that all 
     financial transactions associated with the President's health 
     reform legislation or similar health reform legislation 
     relying on mandated payments to a Government entity be 
     treated as part of the Federal budget, including premium 
     payments by individuals and employees to health alliances 
     (which should be treated as receipts) and payments by health 
     alliances to providers (which should be treated as outlays), 
     for all purposes under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 7. SENSE OF COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET.

       (a) The Committee on the Budget is troubled by the Federal 
     Government's failure to enforce immigration laws and secure 
     United States borders from illegal immigration. The 
     Government has also 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.
       (b) The Committee on the Budget recognizes that the Federal 
     Government has an obligation to help fund increasing State 
     and local government costs directly resulting from 
     ineffective Federal enforcement efforts in this area. 
     Therefore, the Committee assumes that adequate funding in 
     this resolution will be used to reimburse States and local 
     governments for both authorized program costs and legally 
     binding obligations associated with providing:
       (1) Elementary and secondary education for undocumented 
     children in the public schools.
       (2) Emergency medical assistance to undocumented persons.
       (3) Law enforcement resources and personnel to incarcerate 
     and supervise parole of criminal aliens. This funding can 
     either be used by the Federal Government to take into custody 
     and incarcerate criminal aliens or to reimburse States and 
     local governments for their associated costs.
       (4) Services incidental to admission of refugees under the 
     Refugee Admission and Resettlement program.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESERVE FUNDS FOR 
                   EMERGENCIES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the emergency designation under section 251 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has 
     repeatedly been invoked to circumvent the discretionary 
     spending limits for other than emergency purposes;
       (2) amounts for emergencies should be set aside within a 
     reserve fund and subject to the discretionary spending limit;
       (3) the reserve fund shall total 1 percent of annual budget 
     outlays; and
       (4) emergency funding requirements in excess of amounts 
     held in the reserve fund should be offset by a reduction in 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED MANDATES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not diminish the fiscal 
     autonomy of State and local governments over their own 
     sources of revenue;
       (2) the Federal Government should not shift the costs of 
     administering Federal entitlements to State and local 
     governments;
       (3) the Federal Government's share of entitlement programs 
     should not be capped without providing States authority to 
     amend their financial or programmatic responsibilities to 
     continue meeting the mandated service; and
       (4) Congress should develop a mechanism to ensure that the 
     costs of mandates are considered during deliberations on 
     authorizing legislation.

     SEC. 10. 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 
     policies 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 
     resolution should be the current year.

  The VICE PRESIDENT. All after the resolving clause of House 
Concurrent Resolution 218 is stricken and the text of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 63, as amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
  The question occurs on adoption of----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending question is on adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 
218, as amended.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The questions is on agreeing to the concurrent 
resolution.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and 
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--40

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cohen
     Hollings
     Lott
  So, the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218, as amended) was 
agreed to, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 218

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1995.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 1995, including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, as 
     required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1995.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 2. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 3. Debt increase as a measure of deficit.
Sec. 4. Display of Federal Retirement Trust Fund balances.
Sec. 5. Social Security.
Sec. 6. Major functional categories.

                     TITLE II--BUDGETARY PROCEDURES

Sec. 21. Sale of Government assets.
Sec. 22. Social security fire wall point of order in the Senate.
Sec. 23. Enforcing pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 24. Deficit-neutral reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 25. Enforcement procedures.
Sec. 26. Exercise of rule-making powers.

                TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

Sec. 31. Sense of the Congress regarding the budgetary accounting of 
              health care reform.
Sec. 32. Sense of the Congress on the costs of illegal immigration.
Sec. 33. Sense of the Congress regarding baselines.
Sec. 34. Sense of the Congress on economic assumptions.
Sec. 35. Sense of the Congress regarding unfunded Federal mandates.
Sec. 36. Closing of loopholes in foreign tax provisions.
Sec. 37. Sense of the Senate regarding tax expenditures.
Sec. 38. Sense of the Congress regarding health service delivery and 
              water infrastructure in the Indian Health Service.
Sec. 39. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Aeronautics and 
              Space Administration.
Sec. 40. Sense of the Senate regarding a balanced budget and the 
              Spending Reduction Commission.
Sec. 41. Minimum allocation program.
Sec. 42. Sense of Senate on payments to United Nations of United States 
              arrearages in contributions for peacekeeping activities.
Sec. 43. Policy in Eastern and Central Europe.
Sec. 44. Sense of the Senate regarding Federal courthouse construction.
Sec. 45. Sense of the congress regarding Federal law enforcement 
              personnel.
Sec. 46. Sense of Senate that taxes not be increased because taxpayers 
              are married.
Sec. 47. Sense of the Senate regarding certain Department of Energy 
              reductions-in-force.
Sec. 48. Sense of the Congress regarding minerals management.
Sec. 49. Sense of Senate regarding diesel fuel dyeing regulations.
Sec. 50. Sense of the Senate regarding equitable distribution of 
              reductions in discretionary spending.
Sec. 51. Star Wars (ballistic missile defense).
Sec. 52. Control growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
Sec. 53. Sense of the Congress on shifting the allocation of anti-drug 
              funds from international anti-drug programs to drug 
              treatment and prevention programs.
Sec. 54. Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative.
Sec. 55. Sense of the Senate on controlling non-social security 
              mandatory spending.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999:
       (1) Federal revenues.--(A) For purposes of comparison with 
     the maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of 
     the enforcement of this resolution--
       (i) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscalyear1995:$977,700,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1996:$1,031,200,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1997:$1,079,700,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1998:$1,136,400,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1999:$1,190,200,000,000.
       (ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
       (iii) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $100,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $106,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $111,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $117,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $123,700,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund)--
       (i) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $877,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $924,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $967,800,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1998:$1,018,600,000,000.
       Fiscalyear1999:$1,066,500,000,000.
       (ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $0.
       Fiscal year 1996: $0.
       Fiscal year 1997: $0.
       Fiscal year 1998: $0.
       Fiscal year 1999: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--(A) For purposes of comparison 
     with the maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 
     606 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes 
     of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels 
     of total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,242,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,303,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,368,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,437,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,509,600,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,149,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,202,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,315,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,372,300,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--(A) For purposes of comparison with 
     the maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of 
     the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,216,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,283,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,352,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,412,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,485,100,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,124,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,183,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,241,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,290,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,349,600,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--(A) For purposes of comparison with the 
     maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $238,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $252,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $272,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $275,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $294,900,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the amounts of the deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $246,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $258,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $274,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $283,100,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,963,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,278,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,611,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,945,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,289,700,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $26,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $32,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $33,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $35,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $37,800,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $164,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $163,500,000,000.

     SEC. 3. DEBT INCREASE AS A MEASURE OF DEFICIT.

       The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to 
     limitation are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $306,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $315,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $332,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $334,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $344,200,000,000.

     SEC. 4. DISPLAY OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT TRUST FUND BALANCES.

       The balances of the Federal retirement trust funds are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,161,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,275,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,396,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,524,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,651,300,000,000.

     SEC. 5. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $360,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $379,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $399,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $419,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $439,800,000,000.
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $287,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $301,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $312,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $324,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $337,000,000,000.

     SEC. 6. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,780,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,648,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,671,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,199,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,602,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,730,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,730,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,895,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,453,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,556,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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, $239,000,000,000.
       (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, $80,200,000,000.
       (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, $220,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,705,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,330,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,828,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,234,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,440,000,000.
       (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.
       (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, $18,823,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,255,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,406,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,068,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,491,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,493,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (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, $267,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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, $277,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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: $331,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $347,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $364,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $383,300,000,000.
       (22) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,118,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,938,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,492,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,982,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,589,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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, -$33,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee 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) Finding.--The Congress finds that every budget 
     resolution since that for fiscal year 1988 has included 
     language prohibiting counting in the budget process the 
     amounts realized from asset sales (other than loan assets).
       (c) Budgetary Treatment.--For purposes of points of order 
     under this concurrent resolution and the 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.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same 
     meaning as under section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as amended by the 
     Budget Enforcement Act of 1990); and
       (2) the term shall not include asset sales mandated by law 
     before September 18, 1987, and routine, ongoing asset sales 
     at levels consistent with agency operations in fiscal year 
     1986.
       (e) Sunset.--Subsections (a) through (d) of this section 
     shall expire September 30, 1998.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 64 (103d Congress), section 8 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 287 (102d Congress), section 7 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 121 (102d Congress), 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) Finding.--The Senate finds that the concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 1993 and 1994 have 
     prohibited subsequent concurrent resolutions on the budget 
     from decreasing the balances of the social security trust 
     fund.
       (b) Application of Section 301(i).--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.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10(b) of House 
     Concurrent 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) Finding.--The Senate finds that section 12(c) of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1994 
     created a point of order prohibiting legislation that would 
     increase the deficit through fiscal year 2003.
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any direct spending or receipts legislation 
     (including any such bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report) that would--
       (A) increase the deficit for the first fiscal year covered 
     by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget;
       (B) increase the deficit for the period of the 5 fiscal 
     years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; or
       (C) increase the deficit for the period of the 5 fiscal 
     years following the first 5 years covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget;

     when taken individually (as a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report, as the case may be), 
     and when taken together with all direct spending and receipts 
     legislation enacted after the date of enactment of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
       (2) Direct spending and receipts legislation.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, direct spending and receipts legislation 
     shall--
       (A) 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;
       (B) exclude emergency provisions so designated under 
     section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985;
       (C) include the estimated amount of savings in direct 
     spending programs applicable to that fiscal year resulting 
     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
       (D) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
     include all direct spending legislation as that term is 
     defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (e) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the 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.
       (f) 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.
       (g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 12(c) of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 64 (103d Congress) is repealed.
       (h) 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 a rule of the Senate through (but 
     no later than) September 30, 1998.
       (i) Sunset.--Subsections (a) through (f) of this section 
     shall expire September 30, 1998.

     SEC. 24. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) Initiatives To Improve the Well-Being of Families 
     Through Welfare or Other Reforms, To Provide for Services To 
     Support or Protect Children, or To Improve the Health, 
     Nutrition, or Care of Children.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for legislation to improve the 
     well-being of families through welfare or other reforms 
     (including promoting self-sufficiency through improvements in 
     job training or employment programs), to provide for services 
     to support or protect children (including assuring increased 
     parental support for children through improvements in the 
     child support enforcement program), or to improve the health, 
     nutrition, or care of children, within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Initiatives To Provide Comprehensive Training or Job 
     Search Assistance or To Reform Unemployment Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for legislation that 
     increases funding to provide comprehensive training or job 
     search assistance (including reemployment or job training 
     programs or dislocated worker programs), or to reform 
     unemployment compensation, or to provide for other related 
     programs, within such a committee's jurisdiction if such a 
     committee or the committee of conference on such legislation 
     reports such legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of 
     such legislation are not included in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, the enactment of such legislation 
     will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or 
     previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this 
     resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Continuing Improvements in Ongoing Health Care Programs 
     or Comprehensive Health Care Reform.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for legislation that 
     increases funding to make continuing improvements in ongoing 
     health care programs, to provide for comprehensive health 
     care reform, to control health care costs, or to accomplish 
     other health care reforms within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (4) Adjustments for amendments.--(A) If the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget makes an adjustment for legislation 
     pursuant to this subsection, upon the offering of an 
     amendment to such legislation, the Chairman shall file with 
     the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates if the enactment of 
     such legislation (as proposed to be amended) will not 
     increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or previously 
     passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this resolution 
     for--
       (i) fiscal year 1995; or
       (ii) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (B) These revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels, and aggregates contained in this resolution on the 
     budget.
       (C) The appropriate committee may report appropriately 
     revised allocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (d) Initiatives To Preserve and Rebuild the United States 
     Maritime Industry.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for direct spending 
     legislation that increases funding to preserve and rebuild 
     the United States maritime industry within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; and
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. Such 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (e) Initiatives To Reform the Financing of Federal 
     Elections.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for direct spending 
     legislation that increases funding to reform the financing of 
     Federal elections within such a committee's jurisdiction if 
     such a committee or the committee of conference on such 
     legislation reports such legislation, if, to the extent that 
     the costs of such legislation are not included in this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such 
     legislation will not increase (by virtue of either 
     contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the 
     deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (f) Trade-Related Legislation.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for trade-related legislation 
     (including legislation to implement the Uruguay Round of the 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or to extend the 
     Generalized System of Preferences) within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (g) Reforms Relating to the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for reforms relating to the Pension 
     Benefit Guaranty Corporation (including legislation to 
     improve the funding of government-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 within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (h) Reforms Relating to Employment Taxes on Domestic 
     Services.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for reforms relating to providing 
     for simplified collection of employment taxes on domestic 
     services within such a committee's jurisdiction if such a 
     committee or the committee of conference on such legislation 
     reports such legislation, if, to the extent that the costs of 
     such legislation are not included in this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, the enactment of such legislation 
     will not increase (by virtue of either contemporaneous or 
     previously passed deficit reduction) the deficit in this 
     resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (i) Initiatives To Reform the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees for direct spending 
     legislation that increases funding to reform the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 within such a committee's jurisdiction 
     if such a committee or the committee of conference on such 
     legislation reports such legislation, if, to the extent that 
     the costs of such legislation are not included in this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such 
     legislation will not increase (by virtue of either 
     contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the 
     deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (j) Reforms To Consolidate the Supervision of Depository 
     Institutions Insured Under the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for reforms to consolidate the 
     supervision of depository institutions insured under the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act within such a committee's 
     jurisdiction if such a committee or the committee of 
     conference on such legislation reports such legislation, if, 
     to the extent that the costs of such legislation are not 
     included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     enactment of such legislation will not increase (by virtue of 
     either contemporaneous or previously passed deficit 
     reduction) the deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.
       (k) Initiatives To Preserve Energy Security.--
       (1) In general.--Budget authority and outlays may be 
     allocated to a committee or committees and the revenue 
     aggregates may be reduced for initiatives to preserve United 
     States energy security within such a committee's jurisdiction 
     if such a committee or the committee of conference on such 
     legislation reports such legislation, if, to the extent that 
     the costs of such legislation are not included in this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, the enactment of such 
     legislation will not increase (by virtue of either 
     contemporaneous or previously passed deficit reduction) the 
     deficit in this resolution for--
       (A) fiscal year 1995; or
       (B) the period of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
       (2) Revised allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), and again upon the submission of a 
     conference report on such legislation (if a conference report 
     is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may file with the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this subsection. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) Reporting revised allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee may report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 25. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

       (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       (1) Definition.--As used in this section, for the 
     discretionary category, for the purposes of congressional 
     enforcement of this resolution, reduce the discretionary 
     spending limit in section 601 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 by the following amounts--
       (A) with respect to fiscal year 1996, $4,200,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $5,400,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) with respect to fiscal year 1997, $4,800,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $5,600,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) with respect to fiscal year 1998, $8,700,000,000 in 
     budget authority and $5,300,000,000 in outlays.
       (2) Point of order in the senate.--(A) 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 years 1996, 1997, or 1998 (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such a resolution) that would exceed any 
     of the discretionary spending limits 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, new 
     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate or the Committee on the Budget of 
     the House of Representatives, as the case may be.

     SEC. 26. EXERCISE OF RULE-MAKING POWERS.

       The Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rule-making 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. 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 manner;
       (3) Congress should use Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates in accounting for the costs and benefits of health 
     care reform legislation; and
       (4) all financial transactions associated with Federal 
     health care reform legislation mandating employer payments 
     for health care coverage should be treated as part of the 
     Federal budget, including employer mandated payments to 
     entities (which should be treated as Government receipts) and 
     payments made by the entities pursuant to Federal law (which 
     should be treated as outlays), for all purposes under the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 32. 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) States must incur costs for incarcerating undocumented 
     persons convicted of State and local crimes, educating 
     undocumented children, providing emergency medical services 
     to undocumented persons, and providing services incidental to 
     admission of refugees under the Refugee Admissions and 
     Resettlement Program; and
       (5) the Federal Government has an obligation to reimburse 
     State and local governments for costs resulting from the 
     costs described in paragraph (4).
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in setting forth the budget authority and outlay amounts in 
     this resolution, funding should be provided to reimburse 
     State and local governments for the costs 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. 33. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING BASELINES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the baseline budget shows the likely course of Federal 
     revenues and spending if policies remain 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 
     policies 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 
     resolution should be the current year.

     SEC. 34. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) economic assumptions play a significant role in 
     projecting Federal budget expenditures and revenues;
       (2) over the past decade and one-half, the economic 
     assumptions used by both the Office of Management and Budget 
     and by the Congressional Budget Office have been less 
     accurate than the Blue Chip projections;
       (3) future economic assumptions utilized for budget 
     projection purposes should use the latest Blue Chip 
     projections for economic assumptions and quoted public market 
     rates when relevant for projecting interest rates; and
       (4) in the event the Office of Management and Budget or the 
     Congressional Budget Office concludes that using the Blue 
     Chip indicators or market rates are inaccurate, they should 
     present their budget projections using both their own and 
     Blue Chip and market assumptions, along with an explanation 
     of why they find the latter to be unacceptable.

     SEC. 35. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNFUNDED FEDERAL 
                   MANDATES.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not shift the costs of 
     administering Federal programs to State and local 
     governments;
       (2) the Federal Government's share of entitlement programs 
     should not be capped or otherwise decreased without providing 
     States authority to amend their financial or programmatic 
     responsibilities to continue meeting the mandated service;
       (3) the Federal Government should not impose excessive 
     mandates and regulations that increase costs for the private 
     sector, hindering economic growth and employment 
     opportunities; and
       (4) Congress should develop a mechanism to ensure that 
     costs of mandates are considered during agencies' development 
     of regulations and congressional deliberations on 
     legislation.

     SEC. 36. CLOSING OF LOOPHOLES IN FOREIGN TAX PROVISIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) foreign-controlled corporations doing business in the 
     United States do not pay their fair share of taxes;
       (2) up to 72 percent of foreign-controlled corporations 
     doing business in the United States pay no Federal income 
     tax;
       (3) the Internal Revenue Service has limited its own 
     ability to enforce Federal tax laws against foreign-
     controlled corporations, to the detriment of domestic 
     taxpayers;
       (4) the Internal Revenue Service has been using antiquated 
     accounting concepts to deal with sophisticated multinational 
     corporations;
       (5) billions of dollars of Federal revenues are lost 
     annually due to the inability of the Internal Revenue Service 
     to enforce the ``arm's length'' transaction rule--not even 
     counting the costs of bureaucracy and litigation; and
       (6) the Federal income tax laws encourage domestic 
     taxpayers to relocate abroad by granting them deferral of 
     United States taxes on income earned abroad.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that deficit reduction should be achieved, in part, by ending 
     loopholes and enforcement breakdowns that now enable foreign-
     controlled corporations operating in the United States to pay 
     no taxes and that subsidize the flight of domestic businesses 
     and jobs out of the United States, including--
       (1) a more streamlined and efficient method of enforcing 
     Federal tax laws involving multinational corporations, 
     especially those based abroad, in particular, the use of a 
     formula approach by the Treasury Department where the ``arm's 
     length'' transaction rule does not work; and
       (2) a repeal of tax subsidies for domestic businesses that 
     move jobs to tax havens abroad and then ship their products 
     back into the United States.

     SEC. 37. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) continuing budget deficits and the accumulation of 
     Federal debt have a detrimental impact on the Nation's long-
     term economic growth prospects;
       (2) in the absence of further fiscal restraint, the 
     Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal 
     deficit will increase to $365,000,000,000 by 2004 and the 
     national debt held by the public will grow to approximately 
     $6,000,000,000,000;
       (3) tax expenditures are growing significantly; and
       (4) in some instances, tax expenditures may have the same 
     effect as direct Federal spending and should be subject to 
     the same level of budgetary review.
       (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) such targets should be specified in any reconciliation 
     instructions included in a budget resolution; and
       (3) such targets should be enforceable separately from any 
     revenue targets included in the reconciliation instructions.

     SEC. 38. 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.

     SEC. 39. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL 
                   AERONAUTICS 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 
     Administration for any fiscal year from 1995 through 1999 in 
     excess of the amounts proposed by the President for such 
     fiscal year.

     SEC. 40. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A BALANCED BUDGET AND 
                   THE SPENDING REDUCTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) The Congressional Budget Office has affirmed that 
     reductions in outlays of $34,000,000,000 per year below their 
     current baseline will result in a balanced budget by the year 
     2000.
       (2) The Spending Reduction Commission described in S. 1191 
     is a proven mechanism which will provide the necessary 
     reductions in Federal spending required to achieve a balanced 
     budget.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Federal outlays should be reduced to reflect the 
     aforementioned reductions from the Congressional Budget 
     Office Baseline and that a Spending Reduction Commission 
     should be created to propose annual spending cuts sufficient 
     to reach the yearly spending reduction targets.

     SEC. 41. MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the minimum allocation program was established in 1982 
     to address inequities in the funding formula for Federal-aid 
     highways;
       (2) the minimum allocation program was designed to provide 
     the greatest degree of flexibility practicable to States that 
     receive funding under the formula referred to in paragraph 
     (1) and includes an exemption of the apportionments from the 
     obligation ceiling;
       (3) the minimum allocation program provides additional 
     flexibility by allowing a State a 4-year 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 
     allocation 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 commitments to exemption and flexibility.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     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 Federal assistance to States for Federal-aid highways.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Federal-aid highways.--The term ``Federal-aid 
     highways'' has the meaning provided the term in section 101 
     of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Minimum allocation program.--The term ``minimum 
     allocation program'' means the program of allocation of 
     funding to States under section 157 of title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Obligation ceiling.--The term ``obligation ceiling'' 
     means the obligation ceiling under section 1002 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

     SEC. 42. SENSE OF SENATE ON PAYMENT TO UNITED NATIONS OF 
                   UNITED STATES ARREARAGES IN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 
                   PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Sense of Senate on Authority and Outlays.--It is the 
     sense of the Senate that budget authority of $250,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1995 and outlays of $170,000,000 in that fiscal 
     year based upon funds accruing under subsection (b) should be 
     allocated to the committee or committees of the Senate having 
     jurisdiction over contributions to the United Nations for 
     peacekeeping activities for the purposes of permitting the 
     payment of arrearages of the United States in commitments in 
     fiscal year 1994 for such contributions.
       (b) Sense of Senate on Funds.--It is the sense of the 
     Senate that funds should be available for the budget 
     authority of $250,000,000 and outlays of $170,000,000 
     referred to in subsection (a) as the result of--
       (1) the reimposition by the United States of charges on 
     foreign governments (other than Israel and Egypt) for the 
     non-recurring costs of research, development, and production 
     of major defense equipment licensed for commercial export to 
     such governments; and
       (2) the recoupment by the United States from such 
     governments of administrative costs relating to foreign 
     military sales; and
       (3) the elimination of all financing assistance for such 
     sales (other than sales to Israel and Egypt) by the United 
     States.

     SEC. 43. POLICY IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the levels of spending set forth in this 
     resolution regarding the national defense (050) and 
     international affairs (150) budget categories include an 
     assumption that the United States will oppose through 
     appropriate means attempts by the Russian Federation to 
     intimidate, use military force or engage in economic coercion 
     to establish a sphere of influence over the former republics 
     of the Soviet Union, the Baltics, or Central and Eastern 
     European nations, consistent with provisions contained in the 
     Freedom Support Act and the Foreign Assistance Appropriations 
     Act of 1994.

     SEC. 44. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FEDERAL COURTHOUSE 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President's fiscal year 1995 budget includes a 
     request for 11 courthouses with a total estimated cost of 
     over $1,000,000,000;
       (2) while there may be significant need for new Federal 
     courthouses, the need for programs that prevent youth 
     violence before children get to courthouses is greater;
       (3) there should be a moratorium for fiscal year 1995 on 
     the construction of any new Federal courthouses which have 
     not already been specifically approved by Congress; and
       (4) priority should be given to programs for children and 
     families like Head Start and grants for maternal and infant 
     health care.

     SEC. 45. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) violent crimes reported to law enforcement continue to 
     increase with over 1,900,000 offenses being reported to law 
     enforcement each year;
       (2) drug dealing and the violent crime that accompanies it 
     are at the heart of the Nation's current crime crisis;
       (3) the problem of international drug trafficking is 
     increasing and foreign narcotics syndicates continue to make 
     the United States their primary target;
       (4) drug abuse among our Nation's young people, after years 
     of decline, has recently increased;
       (5) interstate criminal street gangs, which deal in illicit 
     narcotics and which are responsible for so much violent 
     crime, are spreading into cities throughout the Nation;
       (6) the Senate has passed a comprehensive anti-crime bill 
     which increases authorizations for Federal and State law 
     enforcement, increases penalties for violent crime, and 
     enhances Federal law enforcement's role in combating violent 
     street crime;
       (7) the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1995 
     cuts the number of Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 
     Task Force, and United States Attorney personnel;
       (8) absent the President's proposed budget cuts to Federal 
     law enforcement for fiscal year 1995, there are still 431 
     fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA agents today than there 
     were in 1992 and, according to the President's budget, there 
     will not be a new FBI or DEA class until fiscal year 1996;
       (9) an adequate Federal law enforcement and Federal 
     prosecutor presence is critical to our Nation's effort to 
     respond to the crime and drug problem; and
       (10) President Clinton and Attorney General Reno have 
     publicly stated their support for enhanced efforts to fight 
     violent crime and drug trafficking.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       (1) current levels of agent strength within the DEA and FBI 
     and the current number of assistant United States Attorneys 
     are inadequate to meet the Federal Government's obligations 
     to our Nation's law abiding citizens; and
       (2) at a minimum, the agent strength for the FBI and DEA 
     should be restored to end-of-fiscal year 1992 levels, and the 
     number of Assistant United States Attorneys should not be 
     reduced.

     SEC. 46. SENSE OF SENATE THAT TAXES NOT BE INCREASED BECAUSE 
                   TAXPAYERS ARE MARRIED.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) successful stable marriages are an essential part of a 
     successful stable society;
       (2) the breakdown of marriages has been one of the causes 
     of our unacceptable crime, illiteracy, school dropout, drug 
     abuse, and illegitimacy rates;
       (3) the Federal Government has a moral and ethical 
     obligation to help promote stable marriages or at least to 
     not undermine them financially;
       (4) the Internal Revenue Code currently contains a number 
     of provisions that financially penalize couples for becoming 
     or remaining married (so called ``marriage penalties'');
       (5) marriage penalties are in effect an annual Federal tax 
     on marriage licenses;
       (6) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 added new 
     marriage penalties to the Internal Revenue Code and expanded 
     some existing marriage penalties;
       (7) marriage penalties financially discriminate against the 
     most fundamental and important unit in our society--the 
     family--and are especially harmful to our Nation's children; 
     and
       (8) there is no policy justification for the Federal 
     Government to financially penalize couples simply because 
     they choose to become or remain legally married.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that no taxpayer, regardless of age, sex, income, or number 
     of dependents, should be required to pay more in Federal 
     taxes under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code 
     because that taxpayer is legally married.

     SEC. 47. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   ENERGY REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) a reduction-in-force at the Department of Energy's 
     Kansas City Plant should not be carried out until--
       (A) the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
     1995 and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 
     for fiscal year 1995 become law; or
       (B) Congress has otherwise approved such an action.

     SEC. 48. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING MINERALS MANAGEMENT.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the budget authority 
     and outlay totals set forth in this resolution assume 
     sufficient funding under budget function 300 (Natural 
     Resources and Environment) to ensure--
       (1) the ability of the Minerals Management Service to run 
     an effective Outer Continental Shelf resource evaluation 
     program that responds to increased interest on OCS areas, 
     including Alaska;
       (2) the ability of the United States Geological Survey to 
     continue to perform mineral resource surveys at the same 
     levels as in previous years; and
       (3) the continued effective functioning of all current 
     Bureau of Mines offices.

     SEC. 49. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING DIESEL FUEL DYEING 
                   REGULATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that changes made to the 
     collection point of the diesel fuel excise tax made as part 
     of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Internal 
     Revenue Service regulations implementing such changes have 
     caused economic hardship, created market distortions, and 
     added burdens to users and suppliers of diesel fuel by--
       (1) requiring businesses, primarily small entrepreneurs, to 
     invest thousands of dollars in equipment, or choose between 
     taxable and nontaxable users of diesel fuel, in order to 
     comply with the new rules;
       (2) imposing cumbersome notification requirements for 
     marketers and distributors of diesel fuel and home heating 
     oil; and
       (3) creating shortages of fuel due to storage tank 
     limitations.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Internal Revenue Service should make every effort 
     to ensure its regulations implementing the changes to the 
     collection point for the diesel fuel excise tax will minimize 
     the economic hardship, market distortions, unnecessary 
     burdens, and supply shortages;
       (2) such regulations should, to the extent possible, be 
     consistent with Environmental Protection Agency regulations 
     implementing the diesel desulfurization program; and
       (3) if the Internal Revenue Service lacks the authority to 
     issue revised regulations consistent with this resolution, 
     then Congress should consider legislation that will eliminate 
     these hardships, distortions, burdens, and shortages.

     SEC. 50. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 
                   OF REDUCTIONS IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

       The Senate finds that since the President's fiscal year 
     1995 defense budget request represents the tenth straight 
     year of real cuts in defense and if the President's defense 
     budget request is approved, since 1985 real defense spending 
     will have been reduced by 45 percent by 1999; and President 
     Clinton, during his State of the Union address on January 25, 
     1994, promised no further cuts in defense spending. Then it 
     is the sense of the Senate that the annual levels of the 
     (050) function should be reduced from the President's fiscal 
     year 1995-1999 budget request only after other annual levels 
     of non-defense discretionary spending in the budget 
     resolution have been reduced, fairly and appropriately.

     SEC. 51. STAR WARS (BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE).

       It is the sense of the Congress that given the Federal 
     budget deficit, the real reductions in discretionary spending 
     in this resolution, and the existence of many more worthy 
     programs competing for this funding, spending for the Star 
     Wars (Ballistic Missile Defense) must not exceed the fiscal 
     year 1994 appropriated level.

     SEC. 52. CONTROL GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENT OR MANDATORY SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that legislation should be 
     enacted providing enforceable limits to control the growth of 
     entitlement or mandatory spending.

     SEC. 53. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON SHIFTING THE ALLOCATION OF 
                   ANTI-DRUG FUNDS FROM INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DRUG 
                   PROGRAMS TO DRUG TREATMENT AND PREVENTION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1991 over 11,000 hectares of opium production were 
     eradicated out of over 238,000 hectares under opium 
     cultivation;
       (2) in 1992 over 22,000 hectares of opium production were 
     eradicated, but the amount of hectares under opium 
     cultivation grew to over 255,000 hectares;
       (3) in the face of a successful opium eradication program 
     in 1992, the amount of land under active opium cultivation 
     grew by 6,700 hectares;
       (4) in 1991 over 6,500 hectares of coca leaf production 
     were eradicated out of over 212,700 hectares under 
     cultivation;
       (5) in 1992 fewer than 5,300 hectares of coca leaf 
     production were eradicated, and the amount of hectares under 
     active coca leaf cultivation grew to almost 217,000;
       (6) the amount of land under active coca leaf production 
     grew by 5,300 hectares in 1992, and coca leaf production 
     increased by 1,200 metric tons over production in 1991;
       (7) the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
     the purity of cocaine available in the United States has 
     increased since 1990, which demonstrates that adequate 
     supplies of cocaine continue to be produced and smuggled into 
     the United States;
       (8) the Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
     the price of cocaine available in the United States has 
     remained stable or declined since 1990, again demonstrating 
     that adequate supplies of cocaine are being produced and 
     smuggled into the United States;
       (9) many observers of national drug policy have come to 
     conclude that the efforts of the United States to reduce the 
     supply of drugs through international law enforcement and 
     training, economic development, and crop substitution 
     programs in foreign nations cannot succeed in reducing the 
     supply of drugs available in the United States;
       (10) recent studies demonstrate that drug treatment and 
     prevention programs have achieved notable success in reducing 
     drug use and associated criminality, including the commission 
     of violent crime by drug users;
       (11) the current national capacity to provide drug 
     treatment falls far short of being able to provide adequate 
     treatment to drug users who need and want treatment;
       (12) additional resources are needed to add drug treatment 
     capacity and to expand drug prevention programs.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that
       (1) in setting forth the budget authority and outlay 
     amounts in this resolution, Congress should take note of the 
     failure of past spending to support international anti-drug 
     programs, including but not limited to those of the Agency 
     for International Development, the Bureau of International 
     Narcotics Matters and the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs 
     of the Department of State, and the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration; and
       (2) the budget authority and outlay amounts in this 
     resolution should be reallocated from international anti-drug 
     programs to support successful drug treatment and prevention 
     programs that will curb the demand for illegal drugs; and
       (3) one-half of the budget authority and outlay amounts to 
     combat illegal drugs be expended to reduce the demand for 
     illegal drugs in the United States and one-half of such 
     amounts be expended to reduce the supply of such drugs in the 
     United States; and
       (4) no budget authority or outlay amounts reallocated in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section shall be taken 
     from budget authority and outlay amounts for foreign aid or 
     international development other than those accounts that 
     support international anti-drug programs.

     SAC. 54. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

       (a) Adjustments.--For purposes of points of order under the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget
       (1) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each outwear;
       (2) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations 
     under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) the levels for major functional category 800 (General 
     Government) and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,
     shall be adjusted to reflect the amounts of additional new 
     budget authority or additional outlays (as compared with the 
     amounts requested for the Internal Revenue Service in the 
     President's Budget for fiscal year 1995) 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 any 
     fiscal year, but not to exceed in any fiscal year 
     $405,000,000 in new budget authority and $405,000,000 in 
     outlays.
       (b) Revised Limits, Allocations, Levels, and Aggregates.--
     Upon the reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), 
     and again upon the submission of a conference report on such 
     legislation in either House (if a conference report is 
     submitted), the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives shall file with 
     their respective Houses 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 
     outwear;
       (2) allocations to the Committees on Appropriations under 
     sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) levels for major functional category 800 (General 
     Government) and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

     to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary 
     spending limits, allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for purposes of congressional 
     enforcement under that Act as the discretionary spending 
     limits, allocations, functional levels, and aggregates.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     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.
       (d) Contingencies.--This section shall not apply to any 
     additional new budget authority or additional outlays 
     unless--
       (1) in the case of such budget authority or outlays for any 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury certifies
       (A) to the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, and
       (B) to the Chairmen of the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives,

     that there has been enacted into law a Taxpayer Bill of 
     Rights 2 which is substantially similar to that contained in 
     the conference report to H.R. 11, 102d Congress, 2d Session;
       (2) the Secretary of the Treasury certifies to the chairmen 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) that the Internal Revenue 
     Service will initiate and implement an educational program 
     with respect to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 1 and 2 for any 
     new employees hired pursuant to such budget authority or 
     outlays;
       (3) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     certifies to the chairmen described in paragraph (1)(A) that 
     such budget authority or outlays will not increase the 
     Federal budget deficit; and
       (4) any funds made available pursuant to such budget 
     authority or outlays are available only for the purpose of 
     carrying out Internal Revenue Service compliance initiative 
     activities.
       (e) Sunset.--This section shall expire September 30, 1998.

     SAC. 55. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONTROLLING NON-SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY MANDATORY SPENDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should
       (1) enact, after health care reform legislation is enacted, 
     annual caps on mandatory spending that take effect beginning 
     in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) include within such caps all mandatory spending 
     programs except Social Security, deposit insurance and net 
     interest;
       (3) provide that the 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 allowance of
       (A) 4 percent in 1996,
       (B) 3.5 percent in 1997,
       (C) 3 percent in 1998, and
       (D) 2 percent in 1999 and thereafter;
       (4) provide that the caps shall be adjusted annually in the 
     President's budget for changes in inflation and the number of 
     beneficiaries in mandatory spending programs since the caps 
     were enacted (excluding any changes due to legislation); and
       (5) provide that if total mandatory spending exceeds the 
     formula in subsection (3), the caps shall be enforced by
       (A) requiring the President's budget to comply with the 
     caps, including submission of proposals to reduce mandatory 
     spending to stay within the caps if a breach is expected 
     under current law;
       (B) super majority points-of-order prohibiting the 
     consideration of future budget resolutions or legislation 
     that would breach the caps; and
       (C) at the conclusion of each session of Congress, a 
     sequestration procedure that would reduce mandatory spending 
     by the amount of any breach of the cap in the upcoming year 
     by reducing those programs growing faster than inflation, 
     beneficiary changes, and the additional growth allowance for 
     that year.
       (6) provides for a period of not less than 60 days before 
     such sequestration for committees of the House and the Senate 
     with jurisdiction over mandatory programs which are 
     determined to be exceeding these allowable spending levels to 
     report legislation that reduces direct spending in their 
     jurisdiction by an amount sufficient to eliminate the excess 
     spending;
       (7) ensures that reductions in Federal spending for 
     mandatory programs required by such legislation is not to be 
     achieved by shifting costs to State and local governments.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Concurent Resolution 63 be returned to the calendar.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, just let me take a moment to express some 
gratitude here at the successful conclusion of our budget resolution.
  First, I want to thank the majority leader, who has once again helped 
in many ways with this budget resolution. I think the majority leader's 
work in this area is just one of the areas where he is going to be so 
terribly missed here in future years.
  I also want to thank my friend, the distinguished ranking Republican 
on the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici and I have 
had some differences this year, as we have just about every year. But I 
want to say that Senator Domenici, the Republican manager, is a 
pleasure to work with.
  We have considered this year many things. We passed a large number of 
amendments, many of them sponsored by Members from the other side of 
the aisle, and we passed them all in a fairly short timeframe.
  I believe this productivity is a tribute to the good cooperation and 
working relationship which Senator Domenici and I have been able to 
maintain over the years.
  I also want to pay tribute to the very able staff of the Budget 
Committee on both sides of the aisle, in particular the two staff 
directors.
  As always, I want to give my special thanks to the staff director of 
the Budget Committee on our side, Larry Stein, for the superb job that 
he did. His patience, good humor, and dedication under very difficult 
and trying circumstances are examples to us all.
  This year, I might say, Larry was struck by laryngitis just before we 
came to the floor. We can truthfully say that he gave his all, 
including his voice, to this budget resolution.
  I want to thank Bill Hoagland, the very able Republican staff 
director, for his cooperation and for his constancy, no matter what the 
hour or the circumstances.
  I should also thank the Budget Committee staff analysts, who kept 
track of and turned around the large number of amendments that were 
proposed this week. Although many deserve notice, let me take a moment 
to single out Kathy Deignan, the assistant director for human resources 
and Sue Nelson, director of budget review, without whom we could not 
put a budget together and, of course, the very able chief counsel of 
the Budget Committee, Bill Dauster, who is always my strong right arm.
  They have put in some long hours. They did some hard work.
  Let me close by expressing my gratitude to my entire Budget Committee 
staff, whose names follow: Amy Abraham, Lisa Bartko, Diane Bath, Andy 
Blocker, Angela Costalas, Bill Dauster, Kathy Deignan, Randy DeValk, 
Kelly Dimock, Tony Dresden, Meg Duncan, Louise Echols, Jodi Grant, Alex 
Green, Matt Greenwald, Chuck Hanson, Stephanie Harbourt, Anne Hill, 
Joan Huffer, Beth Kirk, Jim Klumpner, Jennifer Leake, Nell Mays, Sue 
Nelson, Doug Olin, Diane Reis, Larry Stein, Katrina Thaler, Donald 
Tobin, Buck White, Dave Williams, and George Woodall.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Sasser for the 
way he handled this measure. This is a tough resolution, very 
complicated, very heated on some occasions. I believe he did an 
excellent job, considering the pressures that were on him. I compliment 
him for it.
  Many do not know how long our staffs work on this kind of a 
resolution and how tired they get. I want to thank each one of them 
from the Republican side for all their effort, time, lack of sleep and 
devotion, leading off with Bill Hoagland, staff director; and Jim 
Capretta, Lisa Cieplak, Lynne Daghlian, Christy Dunn, Charles Flickner, 
Andrea Gatta, Melissa Longoria, Carole McGuire, Anne Miller, Roy 
Philips, Denise Ramonas, Cheri Reidy, Ricardo Rel, Austin Smythe, Bob 
Stevenson, Peter Taylor, and Mieko Nakabayashi, a Japanese intern who 
works in the office.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair 
appoints the following conferees, which the clerk will report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Sasser, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
Johnston, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Grassley conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple comments 
on the bill just passed. As my colleagues know, I had intended to offer 
an amendment today which would have provided an extra $1 billion in the 
budget this year for special education. I had proposed to offer this 
amendment in recognition of the critical importance of these funds for 
schools and communities across the country.
  Previously, Senator Dodd and I offered a different amendment, which 
would have shifted $6 billion to function 500 for special education. 
Unfortunately, that amendment failed. For several reasons, my second 
amendment, which I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Brown, Senator 
Simon, and Senator Specter was never brought to a vote. Even though we 
would have had nearly unanimous support for the amendment from the 
members on my side of the aisle and several others on the other side of 
the aisle, I felt that for us to lose twice would be counterproductive 
to my ultimate goal of increasing Federal funding for education. 
Furthermore, I refrained from asking for a vote on my amendment due to 
the objections of the chairman and possibly the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, as well as the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Thus, I would like to leave the record straight. On the Goals 2000 
bill, which we will take up shortly, we had a 93-to-0 vote in support 
of fulfilling our commitment to funding 40 percent of the cost of 
special education.
  Although neither of my amendments to this bill individually garnered 
the votes necessary to pass this year, it is interesting to note that 
if you put together the number of Senators who voted for the first 
amendment and the number who indicated they would have voted for the 
second amendment, we have close to the 93 Senators who voted for the 
original sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Clearly a majority of the 
Senate wants to do something about special education and education 
funding yet we have not been able to get agreement about exactly what 
should be done.
  But I want to say to Members on my side of the aisle--and, like I 
said, their vote would have been nearly unanimous for my amendment--
that I apologize for not having given them the opportunity to show 
their support. I just hope they will understand what our final goal is 
here. We are attempting to reorder our national priorities, in line 
with my amendment last year which passed by voice vote which expressed 
the sense of the Congress that we should increase spending on education 
by 1 percent of the total budget each year for the next 8 years. It is 
imperative that we increase our investment in education if we are ever 
going to meet the goals that we lay out in the Goals 2000 bill.
  It would appear that the enthusiasm of our Members to do something in 
this area is there. Although I was not successful this year. I will 
continue to work hard for this goal in the future.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________