[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7636-S7647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The text of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth 
the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, as agreed to by the Senate on 
Thursday, May 25, 1995, is as follows:

       Resolved, That the resolution from the House of 
     Representatives (H. Con. Res. 67) entitled ``Concurrent 
     resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'', do pass with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1996.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 1996, including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002, 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 
              1996. [[Page S7637]] 

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Debt increase.
Sec. 103. Social Security.
Sec. 104. Major functional categories.
Sec. 105. Reconciliation.

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 202. Extension of pay-as-you-go point of order.
Sec. 203. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 204. Budget surplus allowance.
Sec. 205. Scoring of emergency legislation.
Sec. 206. Sale of Government assets.
Sec. 207. Credit reform and guaranteed student loans.
Sec. 208. Extension of Budget Act 60-vote enforcement through 2002.
Sec. 209. Repeal of IRS allowance.
Sec. 210. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

            TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

Sec. 301. Restructuring Government and program terminations.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate regarding returning programs to the 
              States.
Sec. 303. Commercialization of Federal activities.
Sec. 304. Nonpartisan Advisory Commission on the CPI.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Congress on a uniform accounting system in the 
              Federal Government and nonpartisan commission on 
              accounting and budgeting.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Congress that 90 percent of the benefits of any 
              tax cuts must go to the middle class.
Sec. 307. Bipartisan Commission on the Solvency of Medicare.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on the distribution of agriculture 
              savings.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Congress regarding protection of children's 
              health.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses should remain 
              nondeductible.
Sec. 311. Expatriate taxes.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate regarding losses of trust funds due to 
              fraud and abuse in the medicare program.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Congress regarding full funding for Decade of 
              the Brain research.
Sec. 314. Consideration of the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs, 
              Fiscal Year 1996.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate regarding the costs of the National Voter 
              Registration Act of 1993.
Sec. 316. Sense of the Senate regarding Presidential Election Campaign 
              Fund.
Sec. 317. Sense of Congress regarding funds to defend against sexual 
              harassment.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding financial responsibility to 
              schools affected by Federal activities.
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate to eliminate the earnings penalty.
Sec. 320. Student loan cuts.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate regarding the nutritional health of 
              children.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate on maintaining Federal funding for law 
              enforcement.
Sec. 323. Need to enact long term health care reform.
Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate regarding mandatory major assumptions 
              under function 270: Energy.
Sec. 325. Defense overhead.
Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding the essential air service 
              program of the Department of Transportation.
Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate regarding the priority that should be 
              given to renewable energy and energy efficiency research, 
              development, and demonstration activities.
Sec. 328. Foreign Sales Corporations income exclusion.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal Revenues.--(A) For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution--
       (i) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,043,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,083,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,135,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,189,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,248,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,315,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,386,675,000,000.
       (ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $2,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,675,000,000.
       (iii) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $103,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $109,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $114,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $120,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $126,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $133,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $140,400,000,000.
       (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 1996: $938,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $973,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,019,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,067,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,120,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,180,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,244,600,000,000.
       (ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: -$595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: -$701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: -$793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $11,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: -$6,000,000.
       (2) New Budget Authority.--(A) For purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,269,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,296,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,344,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,387,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,446,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,473,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,519,775,000,000.
       (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 1996: $1,171,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,194,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,237,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,272,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,324,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,342,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,377,900,000,000.
       (3) Budget Outlays.--(A) For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,275,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,293,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,321,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,368,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,423,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,452,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,500,175,000,000.
       (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 1996: $1,179,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,193,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,214,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,255,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,302,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,322,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,359,500,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--(A) For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $232,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $209,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $185,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $178,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $174,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $136,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $113,500,000,000.
       (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 1996: $240,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $219,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $195,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $187,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $182,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $141,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $114,900,000,000.
       (5) Public Debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,201,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,481,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,734,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,980,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,219,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,421,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,599,500,000,000.
       (6) Direct Loan Obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $37,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $40,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $42,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $45,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $45,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $45,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $46,100,000,000.
       (7) Primary Loan Guarantee Commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $193,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $187,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $185,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $183,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $184,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $186,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $187,600,000,000.

     SEC. 102. DEBT INCREASE.

       The amounts of the increase in the public debt subject to 
     limitation are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $298,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $279,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $253,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $245,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $239,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $202,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $177,700,000,000.
     [[Page S7638]]
     
     SEC. 103. 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 1996: $374,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $392,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $411,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $430,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $452,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $475,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $498,600,000,000.
       (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 1996: $299,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $310,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $324,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $338,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $353,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $368,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $383,800,000,000.

     SEC. 104. 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 1996 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,700,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,300,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,900,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $2,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000. [[Page S7639]] 
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $5,700,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,000,000,000
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $123,100,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,200,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,575,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,250,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $19,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,850,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $21,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,350,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $15,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,575,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $22,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,600,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,030,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,420,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $142,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,900,000,000. [[Page S7640]] 
       (B) Outlays, $169,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $193,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $207,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $219,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,700,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $226,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $233,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $246,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $291,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $291,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,600,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $0. [[Page S7641]] 
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000.
       (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, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (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 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $327,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $327,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $338,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $353,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $353,300,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $346,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $351,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $351,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $356,400,000,000.
       (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 1996: $369,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $380,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $388,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $400,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $411,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $421,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $430,760,000,000.
       (22) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,070,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,580,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,300,000,000.
       (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 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (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 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Senate Committees.--Not later than July 14, 1995, the 
     committees named in this subsection [[Page S7642]] shall 
     submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the Senate. After receiving those recommendations, the 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the Senate a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (1) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985) to reduce outlays $2,490,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $27,973,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $45,804,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Senate Committee on 
     Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays 
     $21,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $338,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $649,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (3) Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs.--The 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the 
     deficit $373,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,742,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 
     $6,690,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2002.
       (4) Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.--
     The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to 
     reduce the deficit $2,464,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $21,937,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $33,685,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (5) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending to reduce outlays $1,771,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1996, $4,775,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2000, and $5,001,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002.
       (6) Committee on environment and public works.--The Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending to reduce outlays $106,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $1,290,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $2,236,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (7) Committee on finance.--The Senate Committee on Finance 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     provide direct spending to reduce outlays $21,657,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1996, $278,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2000, and $519,002,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (8) Committee on foreign relations.--The Senate Committee 
     on Foreign Relations shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays 
     $0 in fiscal year 1996, $0 for the period of fiscal years 
     1996 through 2000, and $0 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (9) Committee on governmental affairs.--The Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to 
     reduce outlays $118,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $3,023,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $6,871,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (10) Committee on the judiciary.--The Senate Committee on 
     the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays 
     $119,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $923,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $1,483,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (11) Committee on labor and human resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     to reduce outlays $266,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, 
     $2,990,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000, and $4,395,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (12) Committee on rules and administration.--The Senate 
     Committee on Rules and Administration shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending to 
     reduce outlays $2,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $37,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and 
     $72,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
       (13) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Senate Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending to reduce outlays 
     $301,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $5,760,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $10,002,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

     SEC. 201. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Definition.--As used in this section and for the 
     purposes of allocations made pursuant to section 602(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the discretionary 
     category, the term ``discretionary spending limit'' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 1996--
       (A) for the defense category $258,379,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $262,035,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $219,441,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $264,908,000,000 in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 1997--
       (A) for the defense category $254,028,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $257,695,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $212,164,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $249,248,000,000 in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 1998--
       (A) for the defense category $260,321,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $255,226,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $219,177,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $244,735,000,000 in outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 1999--
       (A) for the defense category $266,906,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $260,331,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $210,509,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $242,212,000,000 in outlays;
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2000--
       (A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $268,468,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $215,463,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $243,078,000,000 in outlays;
       (6) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
       (A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $268,468,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $219,384,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $248,786,000,000 in outlays; and
       (7) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       (A) for the defense category $276,644,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $270,000,000,000 in outlays; and
       (B) for the nondefense category $218,784,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $248,160,000,000 in outlays;
     as adjusted for changes in concepts and definitions and 
     emergency appropriations.
       (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 (or amendment, 
     motion, or conference report on such a resolution) that 
     provides discretionary spending in excess of the sum of the 
     defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits for such 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) any appropriations bill or resolution (or amendment, 
     motion, or conference report on such appropriations bill or 
     resolution) for fiscal year 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, or 2002 that would exceed any of the 
     discretionary spending limits in this section or 
     suballocations of those limits made pursuant to section 
     602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (2) Exception.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of 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.

     SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) Purpose.--The Senate declares that it is essential to--
       (1) ensure continued compliance with the balanced budget 
     plan set forth in this resolution; and
       (2) continue the pay-as-you-go enforcement system.
       (b) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any direct-spending or receipts legislation (as 
     defined in paragraph (3)) that would increase the deficit for 
     any one of the three applicable time periods (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) as measured pursuant to paragraph (4).
       (2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any one 
     of the three following periods--
       (A) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (B) the period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (C) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (3) Direct-spending or receipts legislation.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term ``direct-spending or receipts 
     legislation'' shall--
       (A) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
     include all direct-spending legislation as that term is 
     interpreted for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985;
       (B) include--
       (i) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report to which this subsection otherwise applies; 
     and
       (ii) 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 [[Page S7643]] 
       (C) exclude--
       (i) any concurrent resolution on the budget; and
       (ii) 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.
       (4) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section 
     shall--
       (A) use the baseline used for the most recent concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, and for years beyond those covered 
     by that concurrent resolution; and
       (B) abide by the requirements of subsections (a) through 
     (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that references to 
     ``outyears'' in that section shall be deemed to apply to any 
     year (other than the budget year) covered by any one of the 
     time periods defined in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal 
     of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     this section.
       (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     receipts for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 23 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 218 (103d Congress) is repealed.
       (g) Sunset.--Subsections (a) through (e) of this section 
     shall expire September 30, 2002.

     SEC. 203. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

       (a) In General.--After passage of a conference report on 
     legislation complying with the reconciliation requirements of 
     section 105, revenue and spending aggregates shall be reduced 
     and allocations shall be revised for legislation that reduces 
     revenues within 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 the deficit in this resolution for--
       (1) fiscal year 1996;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission of 
     a conference report on such legislation (if a conference 
     report is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate 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.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee shall report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 204. BUDGET SURPLUS ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Adjustments.--For the purposes of points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     and this concurrent resolution on the budget, the revenue 
     aggregates shall be reduced and other appropriate budgetary 
     aggregates and levels shall be revised to reflect the 
     additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under 
     subsection (c) for legislation that reduces revenues by 
     providing family tax relief and incentives to stimulate 
     savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth.
       (b) Revised Aggregates.--Upon the reporting of legislation 
     pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon the submission of 
     a conference report on such legislation (if a conference 
     report is submitted), the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate shall submit to the Senate appropriately 
     revised budgetary aggregates and levels by an amount that 
     does not exceed the additional deficit reduction calculated 
     under subsection (d).
       (c) CBO Revised Deficit Estimate.--After the enactment of 
     legislation that complies with the reconciliation directives 
     of section 105, the Congressional Budget Office shall provide 
     the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate a 
     revised estimate of the deficit for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2005.
       (d) Additional Deficit Reduction.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``additional deficit reduction'' means the 
     amount by which the total deficit levels assumed in this 
     resolution for a fiscal year exceed the revised deficit 
     estimate provided pursuant to subsection (c) for such fiscal 
     year for fiscal years 1996 through 2005.
       (e) CBO Certification and Contingencies.--This section 
     shall not apply unless--
       (1) legislation has been enacted complying with the 
     reconciliation directives of section 105;
       (2) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has 
     provided the estimate required by subsection (c); and
       (3) the revisions made pursuant to this subsection do not 
     cause a budget deficit for fiscal year 2002, 2003, 2004, or 
     2005.

     SEC. 205. SCORING OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       Notwithstanding section 606(d)(2) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 and beginning with fiscal year 1996, the 
     determinations under sections 302, 303, and 311 of such Act 
     shall take into account any new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit effects 
     as a consequence of the provisions of section 251(b)(2)(D) 
     and 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 206. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

       (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the prohibition on scoring asset sales has discouraged 
     the sale of assets that can be better managed by the private 
     sector and generate receipts to reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit;
       (2) the President's fiscal year 1996 budget included 
     $8,000,000,000 in receipts from asset sales and proposed a 
     change in the asset sale scoring rule to allow the proceeds 
     from these sales to be scored;
       (3) assets should not be sold if such sale would increase 
     the budget deficit over the long run; and
       (4) the asset sale scoring prohibition should be repealed 
     and consideration should be given to replacing it with a 
     methodology that takes into account the long-term budgetary 
     impact of asset sales.
       (b) Budgetary Treatment.--For purposes of any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget and the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the amounts realized from 
     sales of assets shall be scored with respect to the level of 
     budget authority, outlays, or revenues.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``sale of an asset'' shall have the same meaning as under 
     section 250(c)(21) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Treatment of Loan Assets.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the sale of loan assets or the prepayment of a loan 
     shall be governed by the terms of the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990.
     SEC. 207. CREDIT REFORM AND GUARANTEED STUDENT LOANS.

       For the purposes of allocations and points of order under 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and this resolution, the 
     cost of a direct loan shall be the net present value, at the 
     time when the direct loan is disbursed, of the following cash 
     flows for the estimated life of the loan:
       (1) Loan disbursements.
       (2) Repayments of principal.
       (3) Payments of interest and other payments by or to the 
     Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for 
     estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other 
     recoveries.
       (4) In the case of legislation increasing direct loan 
     commitments for a program in which loan commitments will 
     equal or exceed $5,000,000,000 for the coming fiscal year (or 
     for any prior fiscal year), direct expenses, including--
       (A) activities related to credit extension, loan 
     origination, loan servicing, training, program promotion, 
     management of contractors, and payments to contractors, other 
     government entities, and program participants;
       (B) collection of delinquent loans; and
       (C) writeoff and closeout of loans.

     SEC. 208. EXTENSION OF BUDGET ACT 60-VOTE ENFORCEMENT THROUGH 
                   2002.

       Notwithstanding section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as amended by sections 
     13112(b) and 13208(b)(3) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990), the second sentence of section 904(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (except insofar as it 
     relates to section 313 of that Act) and the final sentence of 
     section 904(d) of that Act (except insofar as it relates to 
     section 313 of that Act) shall continue to have effect as 
     rules of the Senate through (but no later than) September 30, 
     2002.

     SEC. 209. REPEAL OF IRS ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Section 25 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d 
     Congress, 2d Session) is repealed.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the revenue levels 
     contained in the budget resolution should assume passage of 
     the ``Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2'' and that the Senate should 
     pass the Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2 this Congress.
       (c) It is the sense of the Senate that funding for tax 
     compliance efforts should be a top priority and that the 
     assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the administration's full request for the 
     Internal Revenue Service.

     SEC. 210. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The Senate adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, 
     and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of 
     the Senate, 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 
     the Senate to change those rules (so far as they relate to 
     the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.
            TITLE III--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE

     SEC. 301. RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT AND PROGRAM TERMINATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that to balance the Federal 
     budget in a rational and reasonable manner requires an 
     assessment of national priorities and the appropriate role of 
     the Federal Government in meeting the challenges facing the 
     United States in the 21st century.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that to balance the budget the Congress should-- 
     [[Page S7644]] 
       (1) restructure Federal programs to meet identified 
     national priorities in the most effective and efficient 
     manner so that program dollars get to the intended purpose or 
     recipient;
       (2) terminate programs that have largely met their goals, 
     that have outlived their original purpose, or that have been 
     superseded by other programs;
       (3) seek to end significant duplication among Federal 
     programs, which results in excessive administrative costs and 
     ill serve the American people; and
       (4) eliminate lower priority programs.

     SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETURNING PROGRAMS TO 
                   THE STATES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) section 8 of article I of the Constitution grants the 
     Federal Government limited powers and the 10th amendment to 
     the Constitution expressly provides that the powers not 
     delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the 
     States and the people;
       (2) in fiscal year 1993, the Federal Government provided 
     funds to States and localities through 593 categorical 
     programs totaling $206,000,000,000;
       (3) in attempting to solve every problem of society, the 
     Federal Government is overburdening the States and its 
     citizens with cumbersome and intrusive laws, programs, 
     regulations, and mandates; and
       (4) in administering many Federal programs, the States are 
     often better equipped to determine and respond to the 
     particular needs of the people than the Federal Government.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Federal programs should be reviewed to determine 
     whether they are an appropriate function of the Federal 
     Government and whether they are more appropriately a 
     responsibility of the States consistent with the 10th 
     amendment to the Constitution;
       (2) Federal resources should be provided in a manner which 
     rewards work, promotes families, and provides a helping hand 
     during times of crisis;
       (3) the Federal Government should seek a new partnership 
     with States that recognizes that ``one size fits all'' 
     solutions of the past are flawed;
       (4) this new partnership should include block grants that 
     provide maximum flexibility to States and localities in terms 
     of the design and structure of programs to ensure the maximum 
     benefit at the least cost to the American taxpayer;
       (5) Federal funds must not be used to supplant existing 
     expenditures by individuals, localities, and States;
       (6) block grants should not be reduced to revenue sharing;
       (7) adequate safeguards should be in place to protect the 
     Federal investment, such as auditing or maintenance of effort 
     provisions; and
       (8) the inclusion of Federal goals and principles in block 
     grant programs may be appropriate, as well as essential data 
     collection requirements for evaluation purposes.

     SEC. 303. COMMERCIALIZATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there are a number of functions being performed by the 
     Federal Government that should not be performed by the 
     Federal Government because they could be more conveniently 
     and efficiently provided by the private sector;
       (2) our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that created 
     a Federal Government of limited powers and limited 
     responsibility;
       (3) the current Federal Government owns one-third of the 
     land of this great Nation, oil fields, hospitals, railroads, 
     Tokyo office buildings, electric companies, 4,900,000 housing 
     units which are owned outright by Housing and Urban 
     Development or are eligible for Housing and Urban Development 
     subsidy payments, and loan portfolios that are larger than 
     most of the financial institutions in the country; and
       (4)(A) the Federal Government's encroachment into the 
     private sector is significant, often duplicative, 
     inconsistent with free market principles, and costly for 
     taxpayers;
       (B) when the Federal Government monopolizes a service that 
     could be provided by the private sector it usually costs 
     taxpayers 30 percent more; and
       (C) one-fourth of the work done by Federal employees 
     competes with the private sector.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress should better define privatization and how it 
     can contribute to ``right sizing'' the Federal Government and 
     at the same time achieve better service, more innovation, and 
     significant deficit reduction;
       (2) privatization can take at least four forms: asset 
     sales, contracting out, creating corporate enterprises under 
     strict and clearly defined deadlines designed to achieve full 
     privatization, and eliminating legislative barriers, 
     generically called ``private sector lockouts'';
       (3) provisions of law that prohibit or ``lockout'' the 
     private sector from competing for providing certain services 
     should be examined and eliminated;
       (4) the private sector from Main Street, Wall Street and 
     Academia should be encouraged by the President and the 
     Congress to bring forward their privatization best practices 
     and proposals for privatization;
       (5) the Head of each Federal agency and department and the 
     Office of Management and Budget should designate senior level 
     staff persons to develop and evaluate private sector 
     privatization initiatives that should be included in the 
     President's budget;
       (6)(A) the Office of Management and Budget should set 
     appropriate privatization goals for each agency; and
       (B) no expansions of programs under a department's 
     jurisdiction should be approved by the Office of Management 
     and Budget unless the agency has achieved those privatization 
     goals;
       (7) section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act which prohibits crediting savings from 
     asset sales should be repealed or modified; and
       (8) Congress should evaluate privatization processes taking 
     place in other countries to determine what lessons could be 
     learned so that United States could develop a comprehensive 
     privatization policy by the end of the next fiscal year.

     SEC. 304. NONPARTISAN ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE CPI.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Congress intended to insulate certain government 
     beneficiaries and taxpayers from the effects of inflation by 
     indexing payments and tax brackets to the Consumer Price 
     Index (CPI);
       (2) approximately 30 percent of total Federal outlays and 
     45 percent of Federal revenues are indexed to reflect changes 
     in the CPI; and
       (3) the overwhelming consensus among experts is that the 
     method used to construct the CPI and the current calculation 
     of the CPI both overstate the estimate of the true cost of 
     living.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) a temporary advisory commission should be established 
     to make objective and nonpartisan recommendations concerning 
     the appropriateness and accuracy of the methodology and 
     calculations that determine the CPI;
       (2) the Commission should be appointed on a nonpartisan 
     basis, and should be composed of experts in the fields of 
     economics, statistics, or other related professions; and
       (3) the Commission should report its recommendations to the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics and to Congress at the earliest 
     possible date.

     SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON A UNIFORM ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 
                   NONPARTISAN COMMISSION ON ACCOUNTING AND 
                   BUDGETING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Much effort has been devoted to strengthening Federal 
     internal accounting controls in the past. Although progress 
     has been made in recent years, there still exists no uniform 
     Federal accounting system for Federal Government entities and 
     institutions.
       (2) As a result, Federal financial management continues to 
     be seriously deficient, and Federal financial management and 
     fiscal practices have failed to identify costs, failed to 
     reflect the total liabilities of congressional actions, and 
     failed to accurately report the financial condition of the 
     Federal Government.
       (3) Current Federal accounting practices do not adequately 
     report financial problems of the Federal Government or the 
     full cost of programs and activities. The continued use of 
     these practices undermines the Government's ability to 
     provide credible and reliable financial data, contributes to 
     waste and inefficiency, and will not assist in achieving a 
     balanced budget.
       (4) Waste and inefficiency in Federal Government undermine 
     the confidence of the American people in the Government and 
     reduces the Federal Government's ability to address 
     adequately vital public needs.
       (5) To rebuild the accountability and credibility of the 
     Federal Government and restore public confidence in the 
     Federal Government, a uniform Federal accounting system, that 
     fully meets the accounting standards and reporting objectives 
     for the Federal Government, must be immediately established 
     so that all assets and liabilities, revenues and expenditures 
     or expenses, and the full cost of programs and activities of 
     the Federal Government can be consistently and accurately 
     recorded, monitored, and uniformly reported throughout all 
     government entities for budgeting and control and management 
     evaluation purposes.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the following assumptions:
       (1) Uniform federal accounting system.--(A) A uniform 
     Federal accounting system should be established to 
     consistently compile financial data across the Federal 
     Government, and to make full disclosure of Federal financial 
     data, including the full cost of Federal programs and 
     activities, to the citizens, the Congress, the President, and 
     agency management.
       (B) Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the President should 
     require the heads of agencies to--
       (i) implement and maintain a uniform Federal accounting 
     system; and
       (ii) provide financial statements;
     in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles 
     applied on a consistent basis and established in accordance 
     with proposed Federal accounting standards and 
     interpretations recommended by the Federal Accounting 
     Standards Advisory Board and other applicable law.
       (2) Nonpartisan advisory commission on accounting and 
     budgeting.--(A) A temporary advisory commission should be 
     established to make objective and nonpartisan recommendations 
     for the appropriate treatment of capital expenditures under a 
     uniform Federal accounting system that is consistent with 
     generally accepted accounting principles.
       (B) The Commission should be appointed on a nonpartisan 
     basis, and should be composed of public and private experts 
     in the fields of finance, economics, accounting, and other 
     related professions.
       (C) The Commission should report to the President and the 
     Congress by August 1, 1995, on its recommendations, and 
     should include in its report a detailed plan for implementing 
     such recommendations.
     [[Page S7645]]
     
     SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT 90 PERCENT OF THE 
                   BENEFITS OF ANY TAX CUTS MUST GO TO THE MIDDLE 
                   CLASS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the incomes of middle-class families have stagnated 
     since the early 1980's, with family incomes growing more 
     slowly between 1979 and 1989 than in any other business cycle 
     since World War II; and
       (2) according to the Department of the Treasury, in 1996, 
     approximately 90 percent of American families will have 
     incomes less than $100,000.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that if the 1996 Concurrent Budget Resolution includes any 
     cut in taxes, approximately 90 percent of the benefits of 
     these tax cuts must go to working families with incomes less 
     than $100,000.

     SEC. 307. BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Health Insurance for the Aged Act, which created 
     the medicare program, was enacted on July 30, 1965, and, 
     therefore, the medicare program will celebrate its 30-year 
     anniversary on July 30, 1995;
       (2) on April 3, 1995, the Trustees of medicare submitted 
     their 1995 Annual Report on the Status of the Medicare 
     Program to the Congress;
       (3) the Trustees of medicare have concluded that ``the 
     medicare program is clearly unsustainable in its present 
     form'';
       (4) the Trustees of medicare have concluded that ``the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays inpatient hospital 
     expenses, will be able to pay benefits for only about 7 years 
     and is severely out of financial balance in the long range'';
       (5) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that 
     ``the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund shows a rate 
     of growth of costs which is clearly unsustainable'';
       (6) the Trustees of medicare have recommended ``legislation 
     to reestablish the Quadrennial Advisory Council that will 
     help lead to effective solutions to the problems of the 
     program'';
       (7) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
     concluded that, absent long-term changes in medicare, 
     projected medicare outlays will increase from about 4 percent 
     of the payroll tax base today to over 15 percent of the 
     payroll tax base by the year 2030;
       (8) the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform 
     recommended, by a vote of 30 to 1, that spending and revenues 
     available for medicare must be brought into long-term 
     balance;
       (9) the Public Trustees of medicare have concluded that 
     ``We had hoped for several years that comprehensive health 
     reform would include meaningful medicare reforms. However, 
     with the results of the last Congress, it is now clear that 
     medicare reform needs to be addressed urgently as a distinct 
     legislative initiative''; and
       (10) the Public Trustees of medicare ``strongly recommend 
     that the crisis presented by the financial condition of the 
     medicare trust funds be urgently addressed on a comprehensive 
     basis, including a review of the programs's financing 
     methods, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms.''.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) a special bipartisan commission should be established 
     immediately to make recommendations concerning the most 
     appropriate response to the short-term solvency and long-term 
     sustainability issues facing medicare;
       (2) the commission should report to Congress its 
     recommendations on the appropriate response to the short-term 
     solvency of medicare by July 10, 1995, in order that the 
     committees of jurisdiction may consider those recommendations 
     in fashioning an appropriate congressional response; and
       (3) the commission should report its recommendations to 
     respond to the Public Trustees' call to make medicare's 
     financial condition sustainable over the long term to 
     Congress by February 1, 1996.

     SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF 
                   AGRICULTURE SAVINGS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, in response to the 
     reconciliation instructions in section 105 of this 
     resolution, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry should provide that no more than 20 percent of 
     the savings be achieved in commodity programs.

     SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING PROTECTION OF 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Today's children and the next generation are the prime 
     beneficiaries of the benefits of attaining a balanced Federal 
     budget. Without a balanced budget, today's children must bear 
     the increasing burden of the Federal debt. Continued deficit 
     spending would doom future generations to slower economic 
     growth and lower living standards.
       (2) The health of children is essential to the future 
     economic and social well-being of the Nation.
       (3) Medicaid covers one in four children and one in three 
     births. Nearly 60 percent of children covered by medicaid are 
     from working families.
       (4) While children represent one-half of all people 
     eligible for medicaid, they account for less than 25 percent 
     of medicaid expenditures.
       (5) Medicaid provides a broad range of services essential 
     for the health of a significant portion of the Nation's 
     children with disabilities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the health care needs of low-income pregnant women and 
     children should be a top priority;
       (2) careful study must be made of the impact of medicaid 
     reform proposals on children's health and on vital sources of 
     care including children's hospitals and community and migrant 
     health centers; and
       (3) medicaid reform legislation which would allow greater 
     State flexibility in the delivery of care and in the control 
     of the rate of growth in costs of the program should also 
     encourage States to place a priority on coverage for pregnant 
     women and children.

     SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT LOBBYING EXPENSES SHOULD 
                   REMAIN NONDEDUCTIBLE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that ordinary Americans 
     generally are not allowed to deduct the costs of 
     communicating with their elected representatives.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible.

     SEC. 311. EXPATRIATE TAXES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress should revise the Internal Revenue Code to 
     ensure that very wealthy individuals are not able to reduce 
     or avoid their United States income, estate, or gift tax 
     liability by relinquishing their United States citizenship; 
     and
       (2) the increased revenues resulting from the revision 
     should be used to reduce the deficit.

     SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING LOSSES OF TRUST FUNDS 
                   DUE TO FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the General Accounting Office estimates that as much as 
     $100,000,000,000 are wasted each year in the health care 
     system due to fraud and abuse;
       (2) outlays for the medicare program under title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act during fiscal year 1994 were 
     $161,100,000,000, and the General Accounting Office estimates 
     that up to 10 percent of those outlays were wasted because of 
     fraud and abuse;
       (3) medicare beneficiaries incur higher out-of-pocket costs 
     and copayments due to inflated billings resulting from 
     fraudulent and abusive practices perpetrated against the 
     medicare program; and
       (4) funds lost because of fraud and abuse are contributing 
     to the financial crises of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund, as identified by the Boards of Trustees of such 
     trust funds in their 1995 annual reports.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that as the Committee on Finance of the Senate and, if 
     established, the Bipartisan Commission on the Solvency of 
     Medicare recommended under section 307, address the long-term 
     solvency of the medicare program under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), high priority 
     should be given to proposals which identify, eliminate, and 
     recover funds expended from the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund due to fraud and abuse in such program. In 
     addition, the Senate assumes that funds recovered from 
     enhanced anti-fraud and abuse efforts be used to fund health 
     care anti-fraud and abuse enforcement efforts, reimbursements 
     to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund for losses due to 
     fraud and abuse, and deficit reduction.

     SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FULL FUNDING FOR 
                   DECADE OF THE BRAIN RESEARCH.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) long-term health care costs associated with diseases 
     and disorders of the brain have a substantial impact on 
     Federal expenditures for medicaid and medicare, and on the 
     earning potential of the Nation;
       (2) to highlight the impact of brain diseases and disorders 
     on the economy and well being of the Nation the Congress has 
     declared the 1990's the Decade of the Brain;
       (3) meaningful research has been initiated as part of the 
     Decade of the Brain;
       (4) if fully funded this research could provide important 
     new medical breakthroughs; and
       (5) these breakthroughs could result in a significant 
     reduction in costs to the Federal Government.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that in furtherance of the goals of the Decade of the Brain 
     the appropriate committees should seek to ensure that full 
     funding is provided for research on brain diseases and 
     disorders in each of the fiscal years to which this 
     resolution applies.

     SEC. 314. CONSIDERATION OF THE INDEPENDENT BUDGET FOR 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS, FISCAL YEAR 1996.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Whereas over 26,000,000 veterans are eligible for 
     veterans health care;
       (2) Whereas the Veterans Health Administration of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest Federal 
     medical care delivery system in the United States, providing 
     for the medical care needs of our Nation's veterans;
       (3) Whereas the veterans' service organizations have 
     provided a plan, known as the Independent Budget for Veterans 
     Affairs, to reform the veterans' health care delivery system 
     to adapt it to the modern health care environment and improve 
     its ability to meet the health care needs of veterans in a 
     cost-effective manner;
       (4) Whereas current budget proposals assume a change in the 
     definition of service-connected veterans;
       (5) Whereas proposals contained within the Independent 
     Budget may provide improved service to veterans;
       (6) Whereas current budget proposals may not have fully 
     considered the measures proposed by the veterans' service 
     organizations in the Independent Budget. [[Page S7646]] 
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the reforms and proposals contained within the Independent 
     Budget for Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 1996 should be given 
     careful consideration in an effort to ensure the Nation's 
     commitment to its veterans.

     SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE COSTS OF THE 
                   NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.

       It is the sense of the Senate that within the assumptions 
     under budget function 800 funds will be spent for 
     reimbursement to the States for the costs of implementing the 
     National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

     SEC. 316. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGN FUND.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying function 800 include the following: That payments 
     to presidential campaigns from the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1974, should not be used to pay for or augment damage 
     awards or settlements arising from a civil or criminal 
     action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment.

     SEC. 317. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST 
                   SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that no Member of Congress or 
     the Executive Branch may use campaign funds or privately 
     donated funds to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.
     SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FINANCIAL 
                   RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds as follows:
       (1) In order to fulfill its responsibility to communities 
     that were adversely affected by Federal activities, the 
     Congress established the Impact Aid program in 1950.
       (2) The Impact Aid program is intended to ease the burden 
     on local school districts for educating children who live on 
     Federal property. Since Federal property is exempt from local 
     property taxes, such districts are denied the primary source 
     of revenue used to finance elementary and secondary 
     education. Most Impact Aid payments are made for students 
     whose parents are in the uniformed services, or for students 
     who reside on Indian lands or in federally subsidized low-
     rent housing projects. Over 1,600 local educational agencies 
     enrolling over 17,000,000 children are provided assistance 
     under the Impact Aid program.
       (3) The Impact Aid program is one of the few Federal 
     education programs where funds are sent directly to the 
     school district. Such funds go directly into the general fund 
     and may be used as the local educational agency decides.
       (4) The Impact Aid program covers less than half of what it 
     costs to educate each federally connected student in some 
     school districts, requiring local school districts or States 
     to provide the remainder.
       (5) Added to the burden described in paragraph (4) is the 
     fact that some States do not rely upon an income tax for 
     State funding of education. In these cases, the loss of 
     property tax revenue makes State and local education funding 
     even more difficult to obtain.
       (6) Given the serious budget constraints facing State and 
     local governments it is critical that the Federal Government 
     continue to fulfill its responsibility to the federally 
     impacted school districts in our Nation's States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that in the assumptions for the overall accounts it is 
     assumed that the Federal Government has a financial 
     responsibility to schools in our Nation's communities which 
     are adversely affected by Federal activities and that funding 
     for such responsibilities should not be reduced or 
     eliminated.

     SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO ELIMINATE THE EARNINGS 
                   PENALTY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions 
     underlying the functional totals in this resolution include 
     that the increased revenues resulting from the revision of 
     the expatriate tax loophole should be used to eliminate the 
     earnings penalty imposed on low and middle income senior 
     citizens receiving social security.

     SEC. 320. STUDENT LOAN CUTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) in the 20th century, educational increases in the 
     workforce accounted for 30 percent of the growth in our 
     Nation's wealth, and advances in knowledge accounted for 55 
     percent of such growth;
       (2) the Federal Government provides 75 percent of all 
     college financial aid;
       (3) the Federal student loan program was created to make 
     college accessible and affordable for the middle class;
       (4) increased fees and interest costs discourage college 
     participation by making higher education more expensive, and 
     more of a risk, for students and their families;
       (5) full-time students already work an average of 25 hours 
     per week, taking time away from their studies; and
       (6) student indebtedness is already increasing rapidly, and 
     any reduction of the in-school interest subsidy will increase 
     the indebtedness burden on students and families.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume the Labor and Human Resources Committee, in 
     seeking to achieve mandatory savings, should do their best to 
     not increase the cost of borrowing for students participating 
     in the Robert T. Stafford Federal Student Loan Program.

     SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NUTRITIONAL 
                   HEALTH OF CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal nutrition programs, such as the school lunch 
     program, the school breakfast program, the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children (referred to in this section as ``WIC''), the child 
     and adult care food program, and others, are important to the 
     health and well-being of children;
       (2) participation in Federal nutrition programs is 
     voluntary on the part of States, and the programs are 
     administered and operated by every State;
       (3) a major factor that led to the creation of the school 
     lunch program was that a number of the recruits for the 
     United States armed forces in World War II failed physical 
     examinations due to problems related to inadequate nutrition;
       (4)(A) WIC has proven to be extremely valuable in promoting 
     the health of newborn babies and children; and
       (B) each dollar invested in the prenatal component of WIC 
     has been shown to save up to $3.50 in medicaid costs related 
     to medical problems that arise in the first 90 days after the 
     birth of an infant;
       (5) the requirement that infant formula be purchased under 
     a competitive bidding system under section 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) saved $1,000,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1994 and enabled States to allow 1,600,000 
     women, infants, and children to participate in WIC at no 
     additional cost to taxpayers; and
       (6) a balanced Federal budget will provide economic 
     benefits to children alive today and to future generations of 
     Americans.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the assumptions that--
       (1) schools should continue to serve lunches that meet 
     minimum nutritional requirements based on tested nutritional 
     research;
       (2) the content of WIC food packages for infants, children, 
     and pregnant and postpartum women should continue to be based 
     on scientific evidence;
       (3) the competitive bidding system for infant formula under 
     section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1786) should be maintained;
       (4) foods of minimum nutritional value should not be sold 
     in competition with school lunches in the school cafeterias 
     during lunch hours;
       (5) some reductions in nutrition program spending can be 
     made without compromising the nutritional well-being of 
     program recipients;
       (6) in complying with the reconciliation instructions in 
     section 6 of this resolution, the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate should take this 
     section into account; and
       (7) Congress should continue to move toward fully funding 
     the WIC program.

     SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MAINTAINING FEDERAL FUNDING 
                   FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers 
     provide essential services that preserve and protect our 
     freedoms and security;
       (2) law enforcement officers deserve our appreciation and 
     support;
       (3) law enforcement officers and agencies are under 
     increasing attacks, both to their physical safety and to 
     their reputations;
       (4) on April 7, 1995, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 32 in 
     which the Senate recognizes the debt of gratitude the Nation 
     owes to the men and women who daily serve the American people 
     as law enforcement officers and the integrity, honesty, 
     dedication, and sacrifice of our Federal, State, and local 
     law enforcement officers;
       (5) the Nation's sense of domestic tranquility has been 
     shaken by explosions at the World Trade Center in New York 
     and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and by the 
     fear of violent crime in our cities, towns, and rural areas 
     across the Nation;
       (6) Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts need 
     increased financial commitment from the Federal Government 
     and not the reduction of such commitment to law enforcement 
     if law enforcement officers are to carry out their efforts to 
     combat violent crime; and
       (7) on April 5, 1995, and May 18, 1995, the House of 
     Representatives has nonetheless voted to reduce 
     $5,000,000,000 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund in 
     order to provide for tax cuts in both H. R. 1215 and H. Con. 
     Res. 67.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that the Federal Government's commitment to 
     fund Federal law enforcement programs and programs to assist 
     State and local efforts should be maintained and funding for 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund should not be reduced 
     by $5,000,000,000 as the bill and resolution passed by the 
     House of Representatives would require.

     SEC. 323. NEED TO ENACT LONG TERM HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress should enact fundamental long-term health care 
     reform that emphasizes cost-effective, consumer oriented, and 
     consumer-directed home and community-based care that builds 
     upon existing family supports and achieves deficit reduction 
     by helping elderly and disabled individuals remain in their 
     own homes and communities.

     SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANDATORY MAJOR 
                   ASSUMPTIONS UNDER FUNCTION 270: ENERGY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that within the mandatory 
     major assumptions under budget function 270, none of the 
     power marketing administrations within the 48 contiguous 
     States will be sold, and any savings that were assumed would 
     be realized from the sale of those power marketing 
     administrations will be realized through cost reductions in 
     other programs within the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 325. DEFENSE OVERHEAD.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the major discretionary assumptions in this concurrent 
     budget resolution include 15 percent [[Page S7647]] reduction 
     in overhead for programs of nondefense agencies that remain 
     funded in the budget and whose funding is not interconnected 
     with receipts dedicated to a program;
       (2) the Committee Report (104-82) on this concurrent budget 
     resolution states that ``this assumption would not reduce 
     funding for the programmatic activities of agencies.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations 
     should make a reduction of at least three percent in overhead 
     for fiscal year 1996 programs of defense agencies, and should 
     do so in a manner so as not to reduce funding for the 
     programmatic activities of these agencies.

     SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL AIR 
                   SERVICE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code--
       (A) provides essential airline access to isolated rural 
     communities across the United States;
       (B) is necessary for the economic growth and development of 
     rural communities;
       (C) connects small rural communities to the national air 
     transportation system of the United States;
       (D) is a critical component of the national transportation 
     system of the United States; and
       (E) provides air service to 108 communities in 30 States; 
     and
       (2) the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive 
     Airline Industry established under section 204 of the Airport 
     and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise Improvement, and 
     Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 recommended maintaining 
     the essential air service program with a sufficient level of 
     funding to continue to provide air service to small 
     communities.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the essential air service program of the Department of 
     Transportation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 
     49, United States Code, should receive, to the maximum extent 
     possible, a sufficient level of funding to continue to 
     provide air service to small rural communities that qualify 
     for assistance under the program.

     SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PRIORITY THAT 
                   SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) section 1202 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 2956), which passed the Senate 93 to 3 and was signed 
     into law by President Bush in 1992, amended section 6 of the 
     Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology 
     Competitiveness Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 12005) to direct the 
     Secretary of Energy to conduct a 5-year program to 
     commercialize renewable energy and energy efficiency 
     technologies;
       (2) poll after poll shows that the American people 
     overwhelmingly believe that renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency technologies should be the highest priority of 
     Federal research, development, and demonstration activities;
       (3) renewable technologies (such as wind, photovoltaic, 
     solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass technology) have made 
     significant progress toward increased reliability and 
     decreased cost;
       (4) energy efficient technologies in the building, 
     industrial, transportation, and utility sectors have saved 
     more than 3 trillion dollars for industries, consumers, and 
     the Federal Government over the past 20 years while creating 
     jobs, improving the competitiveness of the economy, making 
     housing more affordable, and reducing the emissions of 
     environmentally damaging pollutants;
       (5) the renewable energy and energy efficiency technology 
     programs feature private sector cost shares that are among 
     the highest of Federal energy research and development 
     programs;
       (6) according to the Energy Information Administration, the 
     United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its 
     oil, representing $46,000,000,000, or approximately 40 
     percent, of the $116,000,000,000 total United States 
     merchandise deficit in 1993; and
       (7) renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies 
     represent potential inroads for American companies into 
     export markets for energy products and services estimated at 
     least $225,000,000,000 over the next 25 years.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution include the assumption that renewable energy and 
     energy efficiency technology research, development, and 
     demonstration activities should be given priority among the 
     Federal energy research programs.

     SEC. 328. FOREIGN SALES CORPORATIONS INCOME EXCLUSION.

       The assumption underlying the functional totals include 
     that it is the sense of the Senate that cuts in student loan 
     benefits should be minimized, and that the current exclusion 
     of income of Foreign Sales Corporations should be eliminated.

  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 872 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
   THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  MR. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ashcroft pertaining to the introduction of Senate 
Joint Resolution 36 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________