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


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

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


                           Amendment No. 1598

  (Purpose: To reimburse States for costs resulting from the Federal 
     Government's failure to control our borders and curb illegal 
                              immigrants)

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself 
and Mrs. Hutchison.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will inquire, is this the 
amendment that is on the list?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes, Mr. President, it is.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself and Mrs. 
     Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 1598.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 14 by $187,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 15 by $31,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 22 by $187,000,000.
       On page 11, decrease the amount on line 23 by $94,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 5 by $187,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 6 by $187,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 13 by $187,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 14 by $187,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 21 by $187,000,000.
       On page 12, decrease the amount on line 22 by $187,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 1 by $40,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 8 by $7,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 14 by $40,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 15 by $20,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 21 by $40,000,000.
       On page 13, decrease the amount on line 22 by $40,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 3 by $40,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 4 by $40,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 10 by $40,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 11 by $40,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 18 by $183,000,000.
       On page 14, decrease the amount on line 19 by $31,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 2 by $183,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 3 by $92,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 10 by $183,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 11 by $183,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 18 by $183,000,000.
       On page 15, decrease the amount on line 19 by $183,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 2 by $183,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 3 by $183,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 11 by $335,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 12 by $56,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 18 by $335,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 19 by $168,000,000.
       On page 16, decrease the amount on line 25 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 1 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 7 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 8 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 14 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 15 by $335,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 22 by $95,000,000.
       On page 17, decrease the amount on line 23 by $16,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 5 by $95,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 6 by $48,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 13 by $95,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 14 by $95,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 21 by $95,000,000.
       On page 18, decrease the amount on line 22 by $95,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 5 by $95,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 6 by $95,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 14 by $635,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 15 by $106,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 22 by $635,000,000.
       On page 19, decrease the amount on line 23 by $318,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 5 by $635,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 6 by $635,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 13 by $635,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 14 by $635,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 21 by $635,000,000.
       On page 20, decrease the amount on line 22 by $635,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 23 by $282,000,000.
       On page 22, decrease the amount on line 24 by $47,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 7 by $282,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 8 by $141,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 15 by $282,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 16 by $282,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 23 by $282,000,000.
       On page 23, decrease the amount on line 24 by $282,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 7 by $282,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 8 by $282,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 18 by $355,000,000.
       On page 24, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 1 by 
     $1,066,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 8 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 9 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 16 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 17 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 24 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 25, decrease the amount on line 25 by 
     $2,132,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 8 by $450,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 9 by $75,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 15 by $450,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 16 by $225,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 22 by $450,000,000.
       On page 26, decrease the amount on line 23 by $450,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 5 by $450,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 6 by $450,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 12 by $450,000,000.
       On page 27, decrease the amount on line 13 by $450,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 20 by $99,000,000.
       On page 30, decrease the amount on line 21 by $17,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 2 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 3 by $50,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 9 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 10 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 16 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 17 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 23 by $99,000,000.
       On page 31, decrease the amount on line 24 by $99,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 6 by $16,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 7 by $3,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 13 by $16,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 14 by $8,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 20 by $16,000,000.
       On page 32, decrease the amount on line 21 by $16,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 2 by $16,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 3 by $16,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 7 by $16,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 10 by $16,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 17 by $30,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 18 by $5,000,000.
       On page 33, decrease the amount on line 25 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 1 by $15,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 8 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 9 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 16 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 17 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 24 by $30,000,000.
       On page 34, decrease the amount on line 25 by $30,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 20 by $516,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 21 by $86,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 2 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 3 by $257,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 9 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 10 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 16 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 17 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 23 by $516,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 24 by $516,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 11 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 12 by $833,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 18 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 19 by 
     $2,499,000,000.
       On page 41, increase the amount on line 25 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 1 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 7 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 8 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 14 by 
     $5,000,000,000.
       On page 42, increase the amount on line 15 by 
     $5,000,000,000.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have language in the budget resolution 
that talks about the problem being imposed on the States by mandates 
that the Federal Goverment has imposed on the States which forces them 
to provide education, health, refugee assistance, and prison space to 
illegal aliens. But yet, while the Federal Government has the sole 
responsibility under the Constitution to control our borders and to 
keep out illegal aliens, the Federal Government is not fulfilling that 
responsibility, is not controlling our borders, and as a result 
billions of dollars of costs are being imposed on States all over the 
country, especially border States like my own, like California, 
Arizona, New Mexico, and other States as well.
  What I have done in this amendment is pretty simple. That is, I have 
taken all of the President's add-ons in every area except criminal 
justice, where I have fully funded the criminal justice function, but I 
have taken all of the other add-ons and I have cut them proportionately 
to provide $5 billion a year for 5 years to fund the mandates that the 
Federal Government has imposed on the States. This $5 billion would be 
used to help defray the cost of education, of health care, of prisons, 
of refugee assistance--costs imposed on the States because the Federal 
Government will not do its job. The Federal Government will not commit 
the resources to gain control of the border. The Federal Government has 
refused to enforce employer sanctions, and as a result it has imposed 
very heavy costs on the States.
  My amendment remedies that by providing $5 billion a year for 5 
years, and it is my hope that this amendment is adopted. If it were put 
into permanent law, the Federal Government would decide that since the 
Federal Government has to pay the cost of illegal aliens, we would 
commit the resources to the Border Patrol; that we would commit the 
resolution necessary to enforce the law of the land.
  Barring passage of this amendment, the Federal Government is imposing 
very heavy costs on our States, and I think the Federal Government 
ought to pay for it.
  That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple, 
straightforward amendment that simply cuts the President's add-ons 
outside the criminal justice area proportionately and then provides in 
the allowance function $5 billion a year. This money could be made 
available through authorization and appropriation to the States to help 
defray the costs imposed on them by failure of the Federal Government 
to gain control of our borders and keep illegal aliens out of the 
country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will advise the managers of the 
time situation and request some assistance in clarifying that 
situation.
  Only 15 minutes remains on the resolution, and several amendments are 
still outstanding. When that 15 minutes expires, there is no time 
remaining for the amendments.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, notwithstanding the time running out on 
the resolution, it is the desire of the managers that each of the 
amendments have the 10 minutes allocated to them. I ask unanimous 
consent that notwithstanding time running out on the resolution, all 
amendments which are lined up for presentation now under the previous 
order be allowed 10 minutes for debate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator asks that the overall time on 
the resolution be extended accordingly, does he?
  Mr. SASSER. I ask unanimous consent that the time on the resolution 
be extended accordingly.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With six amendments outstanding, other 
than the one that is presently pending, and with the time of those who 
wish to speak in opposition to the Gramm amendment included, that would 
mean the time would have to be extended then for something like 65 
minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. SASSER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to extending the time 
on the overall resolution by 65 minutes, with the understanding that 
each of the remaining six amendments that are outstanding to be offered 
will have 10 minutes thereon, the time to be equally divided according 
to the usual form, and that the 5 minutes remaining in opposition to 
the Gramm amendment also be included, making a total of 65 minutes?
  Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection. That will be the 
order.
  Who speaks in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  The Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Texas 
offsets the increase for immigration enforcement by paying for it with 
``all of the President's adds.''
  That euphemistic phrase encompasses a whole host of items--highway 
funding, education funding, funding for Head Start, funding for the 
Ryan White AIDS funding, the National Health Institutes, and a wide 
variety of other worthwhile investments.
  We are cutting all of those in order to move in the direction of 
increasing more funding for immigration enforcement.
  The amendment of the Senator from Texas hits function 500 of the 
budget the hardest. He proposes to cut $10 billion in budget authority 
out of this function over 5 years.
  Mr. President, this is the same function where Senators Jeffords, 
Dodd, and Simon had been trying to increase funding. I supported them 
in their efforts to increase funding for education and for investing in 
our children. It is this function 500, called education, training, and 
social services, where so many of the President's investments are 
located.
  Let me just list a few of them for my colleagues: Goals 2000, school 
to work, safe and drug-free schools, education of the disadvantaged, 
Job Corps, dislocated workers, Head Start, national services. The 
President proposes to increase these programs. The Senator's amendment 
would simply pull the rug out from under them.
  Mr. President, the Senator's amendment also cuts the Social Security 
administrative expenses. The Social Security Administration is 
chronically underfunded and understaffed as a result of the cuts of the 
1980's. From fiscal year 1985 to fiscal year 1991, the staff of the 
Social Security Administration has been cut by 21 percent. Meanwhile, 
the number of people filing disability claims has increased very 
significantly.
  The number of claims, for example, filed in 1992 was about 50 percent 
of the number of applications received during the 1980's. This number 
is expected to increase. As a result, there is a growing backlog in 
disability determinations. The current disability claim backlog at the 
end of 1993 was 552,000 people, over a half a million. It is expected 
to grow to 1.1 million by the end of 1995.
  What the Senator from Texas is asking us to do is to reduce and cut 
all of these programs dealing with education, dealing with the safe and 
drug-free schools, dealing with the Job Corps, to educate disadvantaged 
youth, cut the Head Start Program, cut national service, reduce the 
staff of the Social Security Administration so that the backlog of 
disability cases will continue to grow all to increase immigration 
enforcement in his State of Texas, and one or two other States. I 
realize there is an immigration problem in many of the States bordering 
on Mexico, and there is an immigration problem in Florida, for example. 
But I do not think that it is wise to reduce funding to all of these 
very critical and crucial education programs to deal with that problem. 
We ought to be able to find funding somewhere else if this is indeed 
such a critical problem.
  Mr. President, this is not a balanced amendment. It is an amendment 
really that is targeted to be of assistance to maybe two or three 
States, including Texas, at the expense of the rest of the Nation, at 
the expense of the education of our children, at the expense of dealing 
with Social Security disability cases, and a whole host of other 
things.
  I urge my colleagues to look unfavorably on this amendment, and to 
vote against it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute 49 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me respond briefly. What my amendment 
does is cut the add-on growth by about 50 percent. It uses the money to 
pay for mandates that the Federal Government has imposed on the States, 
mandates that are generated by the cost of the Federal Government not 
gaining control of our borders. This is clearly a legitimate function 
for the Federal Government. Only the Federal Government has the power 
and the mandate to maintain the security and sanctity of the Nation's 
borders.
  What I am saying in this amendment is pretty simple: either gain 
control of the borders and stop illegal immigration, or pay the costs 
that are mandated on the States. It is an eminently reasonable 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will vote for it.
  We have language in the bill saying we ought to do something about 
the problem. What this does is actually allocate the money to show that 
we are willing to pay for these mandated costs on the States.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, has all time expired on the Gramm 
amendment?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gramm 
amendment be temporarily laid aside and that no amendments be in order 
to the Gramm amendment or the language proposed to be stricken.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, what is the next amendment under the unanimous 
consent?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no specified order, the Chair 
will say to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 1599

  (Purpose: Internal Revenue Service Compliance Initiative Amendment)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Bond, and Senator Pryor, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     Bond, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 1599.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.  . INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE.

       (a) Adjustments.--For purposes of points of order under the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget--
       (1) the discretionary spending limits under section 
     601(a)(2) of that Act (and those limits as cumulatively 
     adjusted) for the current fiscal year and each outyear;
       (2) the allocations to the Committees on Appropriations 
     under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of that Act; and
       (3) the levels for major functional category 800 (General 
     Government) and the appropriate budgetary aggregates in the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget,

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

     to carry out this subsection. These revised discretionary 
     spending limits, allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for purposes of congressional 
     enforcement under that Act as the discretionary spending 
     limits, allocations, functional levels, and aggregates.
       (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     may report appropriately revised allocations pursuant to 
     sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 to carry out this section.
       (d) Contingencies.--This section shall not apply to any 
     additional new budget authority or additional outlays 
     unless--
       (1) in the case of such budget authority or outlays for any 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury certifies--
       (A) to the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, and
       (B) to the Chairmen of the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives,

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

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive all points 
of order. I believe it is noncontroversial and has been agreed to by 
all sides.
  This adds $405 million for enforcement on the IRS. It brings back 
about $5 for every $1 we invest. Right now, we have about 83 percent 
compliance. We all, whether you are for lower taxes or higher taxes, 
ought to be interested in the people who owe taxes ought to pay their 
taxes. This is the step in that direction.
  I know of no opposition to the amendment. I hope it can be agreed to. 
And we have added a provision at the suggestion of Senator Pryor that I 
think is significant.
  I yield to Senator Pryor.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from 
Illinois, Senator Simon, for yielding to me. It has been a pleasure 
working with him on this amendment.
  Originally, Mr. President, I had strong misgivings about what was 
then known as the Simon amendment. From several aspects I had 
misgivings, but now I believe that through cooperation and compromise, 
additions and subtractions, et cetera, that we have forged together a 
very, very good amendment. I hope it will be constructive. I hope that 
will be approved.
  Basically, Mr. President, what is happening here is the Internal 
Revenue Service is seeking to add an additional 5,000 agents, 5,000 
revenue officials across our land. What the amendment now says is if 
these agents are in fact hired, if they are retained by the Internal 
Revenue Service, each of these 5,000 agents--basically that would be 
the number--would be educated on compliance initiatives, and they will 
be educated on taxpayers' rights and education, and none of these funds 
will be used for bonuses, or the like, or to pay for extraordinary 
things like extra or added benefits for these particular agents.
  These agents will be basically schooled in taxpayers' rights 
provisions. Also, there is a very strong condition in this legislation, 
Mr. President, and that condition is that if we hire these additional 
Internal Revenue Service agents, the protections in the law that the 
``Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2'' provides will have to actually be in 
effect. The Simon-Pryor-Bond amendment provides for the funding for 
this initiative, and it will be funded if, and only if, the ``Taxpayer 
Bill of Rights 2'' has been enacted into law.
  We think this is a good amendment. We think that, yes, we perhaps 
need new agents for the Internal Revenue Service to bring in extra 
dollars and to go after those people who are not paying their taxes or 
are possibly cheating the Government on their taxes. But at least each 
of those agents would be instructed and educated and will be schooled 
in the protections that each taxpayer in this country so deserves.
  I thank my colleague and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. SASSER. This is an IRS compliance amendment and, as I understand 
it, pursuant to additional funding going to the Internal Revenue 
Service, they will employ additional agents, which in turn will 
generate additional revenue through compliance with the tax laws for 
the Federal Government?
  Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. I will ask my friend from Illinois this: We have done 
this before with the Internal Revenue Service, as my friend knows. The 
IRS has alleged that this has resulted in substantial additional 
compliance.
  Does the Senator from Illinois have any data as to how much in 
additional revenues we receive for each $1 spent for these additional 
compliance measures?
  Mr. SIMON. Yes. We receive about $5 for each $1 that is spent. 
Obviously, you get to a point of diminishing returns. So if we were to 
make 10 times this amount, we would not pull in $5 for every $1. But 
the IRS believes this is a sensible move, and on the basis of the 
information they have given me, I believe that is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. I know other Senators have been interested in this 
initiative for some time, including the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, the Senator from North Dakota. We are essentially, as I 
understand it, relying on the IRS, however, to give us information as 
to how much additional revenues we receive by virtue of increasing 
funding to enforce compliance; is that an accurate statement?
  Mr. SIMON. That is correct. I think it would be a good idea to ask 
CBO or GAO to take a look at that.
  Mr. SASSER. That is my point. I am interested in knowing if we are 
getting an unbiased view. This funding would be outside of the 
limitations or beyond the so-called caps, as I understand it; is that 
correct?
  Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
  Mr. SASSER. So the Appropriations Committee would not be forced to 
try to fund this out of other programs that they might have ongoing?
  Mr. SIMON. That is absolutely correct. I will shortly ask unanimous 
consent that we waive all points of order under the Congressional 
Budget Act so that we can do this. It is a similar action that we took 
in 1990.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator does not need to make that request as long as 
there is a point of order.
  May I have 1 minute?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
chairman.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take this minute to state that I have 
confirmed with the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Bentsen, the point 
concerning the revenues that would come in as a result of having these 
additional personnel.
  I am informed by Mr. Bentsen that indeed there would be expected to 
be a 5-to-1 ratio with respect to the benefits to accrue from the cost. 
So what Mr. Simon has stated with respect to those benefits is 
confirmed by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Bentsen.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I also appreciate 
Senator Byrd, who knows more about the Senate rules than anybody, by a 
country mile.
  Let me make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. Senator Byrd just 
made the point that if no point of order is raised, then I do not need 
to ask to waive the Congressional Budget Act in this regard; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will consult with the 
Parliamentarian.
  That is correct, with respect to the pending resolution.
  Mr. BYRD. I think the Senator should proceed and make the request in 
this instance.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive all points 
of order by voice vote under the Congressional Budget Act with respect 
to the pending amendment and with respect to the language of such 
amendment, and that if such language is included in any conference 
report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1995, 
such language should be substantially similar to the language in the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee, the chairman of the Budget Committee, yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. SASSER. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, actually, last evening, the CBO has come 
into question here, and last evening we did shape some language here 
that I think will clarify a matter.
  Now, under the Simon-Bond-Pryor proposal, CBO must certify that this 
proposal will raise revenue and not increase the deficit, or it will 
not receive the funding for the new IRS agents.
  That is, in fact, in the language of the amendment now as a result of 
a compromise and agreement reached late in the evening last night.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all time. I 
see Senator Jeffords on the floor, and I am advised by the 
distinguished ranking Member's staff that he has no objection to this, 
to moving forward with a voice vote.
  I yield back all time.
  Mr. SIMON. As a point of parliamentary clarification, I ask that the 
words ``by voice vote'' be deleted from my unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Simon amendment, 
and I want to thank Senator Simon for working with me on this 
amendment, which I originally had misgivings about, but now, given some 
added safeguards, I can support and I will vote for today.
  The idea that more revenue agents can raise more tax dollars is not a 
new one. In 1990, President Bush opposed, and Congress enacted, $191 
million for 3,476 new agents.
  At that time, Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office stated 
that the Bush proposal would raise no revenue. In the proposal before 
us, the IRS claims it needs approximately 5,000 new agents which will 
enable it to raise $9 to $10 billion more in revenue.
  Mr. President, the IRS now claims it can prove the savings under the 
proposal, therefore, the Simon amendment now requires CBO to certify 
that this proposal will raise revenue, and not increase the deficit, or 
it will not receive the funding for the new agents. This added 
contingency is good common sense and it will help ensure that the 
budget caps are not violated.
  Also, Mr. President, the Simon amendment now contains a contingency 
that the funds authorized must be spent on compliance initiatives. 
Under this amendment, none of this money can be spent on pay raises, 
locality pay, or any purpose other than this compliance initiative.
  Next, Mr. President, the IRS will argue that more agents means better 
compliance, but I believe that more agents alone is not the answer.
  My first priority as chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on IRS 
Oversight is to see that taxpayers are treated fairly. Mr. President, 
we look to our citizens to respect the tax system and the agency of 
Government assigned the difficult task of administering it. On the 
other hand, we also have a right to expect the men and women of the IRS 
to respect taxpayers, and to demonstrate that respect through courtesy 
and competence.
  In order to meet this obligation under this amendment, we have 
provided that the Secretary of Treasury must certify that the IRS will 
initiate and implement a taxpayer rights education program for the new 
IRS employees.
  Further, Mr. President, on February 20, 1992, after extensive 
hearings, I introduced the taxpayer bill of rights II. This legislation 
was cosponsored by 52 of my colleagues in the Senate and it passed 
Congress twice but was vetoed as part of tax bills sent to President 
Bush in 1992.
  Mr. President, if we hire 5,000 new IRS agents, I believe we must 
give to the taxpayer the protections in the law that the taxpayer bill 
of rights II provides. Therefore, the Simon amendment provides that the 
funds for this compliance initiative will be funded after the first 
year if, and only if, the taxpayer bill of rights II is enacted into 
law.
  Mr. President, once again I want to thank Senator Simon for working 
with me to address my concerns. I believe these additions to the 
amendment make it a good one and I urge its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1599) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont on the floor. May I inquire, is he here for the purpose of 
offering an amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here for the purpose of offering an 
amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand that under the unanimous-
consent request, there are 5 minutes allowed to proponents and 5 
minutes to the opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1585

    (Purpose: To reduce function 920 to reflect a freeze of Federal 
   overhead spending in fiscal year 1996, and then an adjustment of 
  inflation in fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999, and assumes that all 
 Federal agencies to improve the collection of delinquent debts, with 
 one-third of the savings for deficit reduction and two-thirds for the 
 Federal share of education funding for individuals with disabilities)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Brown, Mr. Simon, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1585.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 7, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 7, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 7, line 9, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 7, line 10, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 7, line 11, decrease the amount by $5,725,000,000.
       On page 7, line 12, decrease the amount by $7,150,000,000.
       On page 8, line 8, decrease the amount by $975,000,000.
       On page 8, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 8, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,325,000,000.
       On page 8, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,425,000,000.
       On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 18, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $4,375,000,000.
       On page 25, line 1, increase the amount by $3,850,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $4,450,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $4,375,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $4,525,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $4,525,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $4,600,000,000.
       On page 38, line 13, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 38, line 14, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 38, line 20, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 38, line 21, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 39, line 2, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 39, line 3, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 39, line 9, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 39, line 10, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 39, line 25, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 40, line 1, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 40, line 8, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 40, line 21, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by $5,500,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 41, line 25, decrease the amount by $5,600,000,000.
       On page 42, line 1, decrease the amount by $5,500,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $5,700,000,000.
       On page 42, line 8, decrease the amount by $5,700,000,000.
       On page 42, line 14, decrease the amount by $5,800,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $5,800,000,000.
       On page 70, line 21, increase the amount by $1,125,000,000.
       On page 70, line 22, increase the amount by $950,000,000.
       On page 70, line 24, increase the amount by $1,150,000,000.
       On page 70, line 25, increase the amount by $1,125,000,000.
       On page 71, line 2, increase the amount by $1,175,000,000.
       On page 71, line 3, increase the amount by $1,175,000,000.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to the one 
that was offered earlier on Tuesday by Senator Dodd. However, it is 
significantly different in several aspects.
  I have been working with Senator Brown and Senator Simon, who both 
opposed the Dodd amendment, to bring one before this body which could 
be voted for and, I believe, adopted overwhelmingly.
  It adds $1 billion in fiscal year 1995 to the Special Education 
Program in function 500. The Dodd amendment attempted to add $6 
billion. It adds $19 billion over 5 years in the outyears. Unlike 
Tuesday's amendment, however, it does not add back any Exon-Grassley 
money and it does not reduce defense or intelligence spending. Further, 
it does not lower the 1995 cap. Instead, it is fully offset by Senator 
Brown's proposal to continue the Government overhead freeze proposed by 
President Clinton and Senator Sasser for fiscal year 1995 into the 
outyears and by improved collection of debts owed to the Federal 
Government. In fact, it actually adds a bit to the deficit reduction in 
the resolution.
  Mr. President, it has been more than a decade since the report, ``A 
Nation at Risk'' warned of the rising tide of mediocrity of our 
schools. It has been more than 4 years since President Bush, Governor 
Clinton, and all the Governors from across the land agreed to the goals 
for our schools. It has been almost 20 years since we committed to 
helping schools with 40 percent of their special education costs.
  This year, no more unkept promises. This year, we need to start 
delivering on our past promises.
  We can begin by putting in place the Goals 2000 education bill, which 
will provide Federal help to State and local educational efforts. When 
the Senate passed the Goals 2000 bill, we identified a number of areas 
where significant improvement was needed. By a 93-to-0 vote and by my 
commitment with Senator Gregg, we also expressed the sense of the 
Senate that the Federal Government begin meeting the commitment it made 
in 1975 to fund 40 percent of special education.
  Today, the Federal Government provides less than 8 percent of the 
cost of this very important program. This is the first installment we 
make toward living up to the Federal Government's commitment.
  Our local school districts and the States are being pressed to the 
limit, with their budgets being brought through the wringer. They are 
struggling just to meet their current commitments and will have a 
nearly impossible task to improve their performance without increased 
Federal help. Here is an opportunity to help them.

  Special education is a program that everyone supports and everyone 
wants to succeed. Obviously, it is difficult to find additional money 
for any program, but this a program for the children of our country and 
for a better future for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I will now, if appropriate, yield to the Senator from 
Illinois for his comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will be very brief. What this does is--it 
does not add one cent to the deficit--it says let us make a priority 
out of education.
  Economists may differ on a lot of things. One thing they agree on is 
in this country we are going to have to make a greater priority out of 
education if we are to reach our productive potential.
  That is what this amendment says, and I am pleased to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the amendment's author, 
does this amendment lower the overall cap on discretionary spending 
over 5 years?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. In the outyears it may.
  As the Senator well knows, that will be a matter for discussion in 
the conference, but it does not lower the cap for the year 1995.
  Mr. SASSER. But over 5 years, as I understand, it would lower the cap 
and really lower it below the existing Exon-Grassley cut; is that 
correct?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am not aware of the answer to that question. But I 
know that for the critical year of 1995 it does not. I would certainly 
accept the word of the chairman of the committee for the outyears.
  Mr. SASSER. Could the Senator advise us how much it lowers the cap 
over the 5-year period?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding that over the 5 years it is $19 
billion.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am sorry. It lowers the total $4.45 billion over the 
outyears.
  Mr. SASSER. It is $4.45 billion in the total in the outyears?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is right.
  Mr. SASSER. Excluding 1995?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is right.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not be agreed to. 
Last year, it was brought here and we set a limitation on the caps. Now 
if we make cuts and reduce the caps accordingly, we are taking a second 
shot at the work we did last year.
  We have already squeezed our discretionary programs to the limit, and 
it seems to me we ought to try to live up to the 5-year agreement we 
made last year without coming in every year now in some instances on 
continuing the amendments to cut but also of lowering the cap.
  So I oppose this amendment. I hope the Senate will reject it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield what time I may have to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I support the distinguished Senator from Vermont on this issue. Let 
me emphasize something. This is not a cut. This is merely a freeze in 
overhead costs for several years and then limiting the growth of the 
cost of living in the other 2 years.
  So at least in the major areas there are some other adjustments. In 
the major areas this is not a cut. This simply says we are not going to 
increase as fast. It follows on the fine work of the Budget Committee 
and our distinguished chairman and ranking member on working on 
overhead expenses this year.
  Mr. President, this sets priorities. It says the children are more 
important than increases in travel costs and office expenses and phone 
calls, and, in fact, it does not cut them. What it does is we are going 
to slow them to transfer the money over to helping our children in 
education. A small portion of the money here, roughly a fourth of the 
overhead cost, does go to the taxpayer. That is, it goes to the 
taxpayer by reducing the deficit. But this sets the priority. It says 
children are more important than increases in overhead.
  It seems to me that is the kind of message and the kind of good 
budgeting that we want to do in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I certainly applaud what my distinguished 
friend from Vermont is attempting to do here. It has been my pleasure 
to work with the Senator from Vermont on a number of other amendments 
to try to allocate move funding from other functions into the education 
function and to allocate that funding for special education.
  As I understand it, this is the first amendment that has been offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Vermont which would, in essence, 
lower the caps in the outyears or reduce funding for overall 
discretionary spending in the outyears.
  As much as I admire the dedication of my friend from Vermont in this 
area of allocating additional resources to special education and as 
much as I agree with him in that particular instance, I think he is 
entirely right that we do need to allocate more funding to education 
generally and to special education in particular. I would be reluctant, 
however, to do that at the expense of reducing in the outyears funding 
for overall discretionary purposes. I say that for this reason. We 
entered into an agreement last year, or passed legislation last year, 
setting the caps for discretionary spending over a 5-year period, and I 
am just very, very reluctant to now come back and start nibbling at 
those caps in an effort to put together enough support here to pass a 
particular initiative no matter how worthwhile that initiative may be.
  I think the initiative of the Senator from Vermont is extraordinarily 
worthwhile. So I hope the Senator will understand that, although I 
agree with him in spirit here, on closer analysis of the amendment, I 
do have some reservations about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator's time has expired 
on the amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
of the Senator from Vermont be temporarily laid aside and be disposed 
of following the Graham amendment numbered 1598, and that no amendments 
be in order to the Jeffords amendment or to the language it proposes to 
strike.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, that is the 
order.
  Mr. SASSER. Under the schedule we earlier agreed to, the next 
amendment would be the Graham amendment. I see the distinguished 
Senator from Florida is present on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 1600

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have approached the issue of deficit 
reduction often as if it were castor oil, that it was bad, distasteful 
medicine we had to take in order to benefit our children and 
grandchildren to relieve them of a burden of a constantly growing 
national debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to send his amendment to 
the desk?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will make a few introductory remarks and 
then I will submit the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we took some of that strong castor oil 
last summer with the adoption of a significant deficit reduction 
program. Before we took that action, it was projected by the Office of 
Management and Budget that we would have a spiraling, out-of-control 
deficit for the middle part of this decade and into the next century. 
As a result of the action that we took, we have substituted a different 
economic course for the Nation.
  For instance, in this current fiscal year, fiscal year 1994, instead 
of running a deficit of $301 billion, which had been projected, we will 
have a deficit of $223 billion. And for next year, the year that will 
be affected by the budget resolution that currently is before us, 
instead of a deficit of $296 billion, it will be a deficit of $171 
billion.
  That was tough medicine that we took, and we accomplished a 
significant change in our Nation's economic future. But we also, Mr. 
President, got some immediate benefits. We did not have to wait long to 
begin to see that this remedy had a positive effect.
  The week in which we adopted the economic program of August 1993, 
long-term interest rates in the United States were 6.53 percent. Within 
a period of approximately 90 days, largely as a result of that action, 
long-term interest rates dropped to less than 5.9 percent, a dramatic 
reduction in the cost of money for those things that Americans purchase 
for their homes and other long-term investments; a dramatic reduction 
in the cost to businesses in terms of expansion, the creation of new 
jobs.
  What I think we saw here, Mr. President, was that there is a linkage 
between our degree of fiscal responsibility and the confidence that 
will be placed in our national fiscal policy by those who make long-
term economic decisions.
  But, Mr. President, there is also in this same chart some disturbing 
news. And that is the fact that beginning in about the middle of 
October, that very positive gain started to be erased and we began to 
see a pattern in which long-term interest rates began to rise again. By 
the end of January, we were back to where we had been in August, and 
now we are up in the range of 6.8, 6.9 percent long-term interest 
rates.
  What has happened? Why have we seen these gains reversed? Well, there 
are always a number of factors, some of which relate to matters outside 
the control of Government, some of which relate to Government actions. 
But I believe that one of the most fundamental reasons there has been 
this lessening of confidence in our economic policy reflected in an 
upturn in long-term interest rates is because people are starting to 
focus on the back end of this chart of deficit reductions.
  While we got the applause for reducing the deficit in the immediate 
future, we are now beginning to pay the price for the fact that people 
are focusing on the fact that beginning in about 1997 the deficit will 
start to go up again and by the turn of the century, we will be running 
deficits of about the same proportion as we ran in the 1980's.
  I believe, therefore, Mr. President, we need to use every opportunity 
that is available to us to send a signal that we are concerned about 
this longer term implication of our deficit policy and are ready to 
take some steps to deal with it.
  For that reason, I have supported the efforts that were made by 
Senator Exon and Senator Grassley to at least make a token further 
reduction in our spending in fiscal year 1995. I think it is very 
important that that provision be held throughout the further 
consideration of this budget resolution.
  But I believe that, as we look at this long-term distressing picture 
of increasing deficits that, we need to go beyond token measures. 
Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to offer as a sense-of-the-Senate 
proposal to this budget resolution a statement which has been endorsed 
by Senators Kerrey of Nebraska, Lieberman, Gregg, Brown, Robb and 
Domenici, which states that legislation should be enacted providing 
enforceable limits to control growth of entitlement or mandatory 
spending.
  I send that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerrey, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Brown, Mr. Robb, and 
     Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1600.
       It is the sense of the Senate that legislation should be 
     enacted providing enforceable limits to control the growth of 
     entitlement or mandatory spending.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I call to the attention of the Senator from 
Florida that he has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I conclude by saying there is nothing more 
important we could do to send a signal as to our resolve to deal with 
our deficit issue than a clear statement that we are prepared to impose 
the same type of discipline on our entitlement spending that last year 
we imposed on our discretionary spending. I recognize that this is a 
commitment, not a promise fulfilled, in terms of our willingness to do 
so. But I think it is an important step to take today, a step that we 
must then fulfill in terms of positive binding action in the weeks 
ahead. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has come to the 
Senate this morning with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would 
indicate that we should enact limits to control the growth of 
entitlement or mandatory spending. I think we all agree that we are 
going to have to have some restraint on some mandatory programs. 
Specifically, we are going to have to have some restraint on the health 
accounts.
  I am not sure that any of us are ready at the present time to specify 
how we should do that before the construction of a health care reform 
bill, but I know my friend from Florida knows that that is really the 
driving force behind the growth in entitlements--health care.
  But I would say that I accept, in a broad sense, the Senate language 
that we have been discussing here and which has been offered by our 
friend from Florida. So I have no objection to accepting this 
amendment.
  If we could get the attention of our friend from New Mexico, our 
distinguished ranking member, on this particular matter.
  Let me say to my friend from New Mexico that the Senator from Florida 
has before us a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that has as its thrust 
that we should enact enforceable limits to control the growth of 
entitlement or mandatory spending. It is a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that we control mandatory or entitlement growth, and I have 
no objection to accepting it, if that is acceptable to the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me a minute?
  Mr. SASSER. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this. It is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution, therefore, it is not binding.
  But I compliment the Senator from Florida for trying to let the 
Senate say the time has come. I much prefer a real one that is binding, 
much like the one we offered before in the name of Nunn-Domenici or 
Domenici-Nunn. But if we are just speaking what we would like to be the 
sense of the Senate here, I have no objection to it and I commend the 
Senator for it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
his excellent statement. I want to indicate he is an original cosponsor 
of this sense of the Senate.
  I would also like to point out this same language is currently 
contained in the budget resolution as it passed the House of 
Representatives. So, if we adopt it, it assumedly will be in the final 
budget resolution. I believe that will give a significance and impetus 
to convert this statement of policy and principle into the reality of a 
controlling statute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee yield back his 
time?
  Mr. SASSER. I yield the remainder of our time.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1600) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, under the previous agreement, the next 
amendment to be considered will be that of the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Nunn].


                           Amendment No. 1601

 (Purpose: To place a permanent, enforceable cap on the amount of non-
  Social Security mandatory spending, beginning with fiscal year 1996)

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici, 
Senator Robb, and Senator Danforth, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Danforth, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1601.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. NUNN. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is available and 
how that time is allocated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A total of 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side 
is allotted for presentation of amendments.
  Mr. NUNN. So I have a total of how much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. Does the Senator from New Mexico have time on his own 
right?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just need 1 minute.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, that makes it very difficult to explain in 
about 3\1/2\ minutes how we are going to save $100 billion and turn 
around the budget trend of America which has been taking place for 
about 25 years, but that is what this sense of the Senate will do. The 
problem with this resolution, as all other resolutions, is it has to be 
a sense of the Senate because of the procedural situation. But it is a 
serious resolution. We mean it seriously.
  It is to address this very profound problem reflected on this chart. 
This chart tells the story of why America cannot and is not so far 
willing to get its deficit under control; why Congress has not dealt 
with it.
  The defense budget is coming down $190 billion, if you measure the 
difference between what we spent over the last 5 years and what we are 
going to spend over the next 5 years. The domestic discretionary is 
going up about $240 billion. The net of these two accounts that we call 
discretionary is going to go up about $90 billion. But defense is going 
down.
  Now look at Social Security. This is going up $420 or $430 billion in 
terms of the increase, but it is paid for. That is paid for with taxes. 
In fact there is a surplus that we are borrowing every year from the 
Social Security trust funds.
  But look at health care. Assuming the President's program and 
assuming the savings take place, this is going up $800 billion; an $800 
billion difference over 5 years.
  The interest on the debt is going up $190 billion. People ask me, why 
are we not saving money on defense? We are. All the money on defense is 
being spent with new interest on the debt. If you look at health care, 
we are spending, over the next 5 years, four times on health care 
increases in the Federal budget what we are saving in the Defense 
budget.
  We voted on this amendment or a similar amendment several times. I am 
not going to go into detail on it because I want to reserve time for 
the Senator from New Mexico. Essentially, however, this amendment 
limits the growth of overall entitlement spending to the rate of 
inflation plus the population growth. We even put a kicker in for the 
first 4 years. We add 4 percent in 1996, we add 3.5 percent in 1997; 3 
percent in 1998, 2 percent in 1999. So it is inflation in 1996 plus 4 
percent. We should be able to discipline ourselves to that kind of 
growth rate. This amendment does not gut entitlements. This amendment 
restrains the growth on entitlements, which are running away from us 
and which are causing our deficit.
  There will be two arguments against this amendment at least. One 
argument we have heard over and over again: It is not specific enough. 
There is nothing specific in this whole budget resolution. That is the 
job of the authorizers and appropriators. There is nothing specific in 
the defense cuts. Not one item is specific in this resolution as to the 
defense cuts. People may have notions but they have not written them 
into this law. So this is just as specific as anything else. We are 
making it clear we expect the entitlement cap to be met. This would 
require further legislation. It would require sequester procedure. We 
set that out, and I think that is the answer to that argument.
  The other argument is what does this do to the President's health 
care plan? The answer to that is we have bent over backward--some would 
say too far--in this resolution to say whatever health care plan the 
Congress agrees to becomes the baseline and then we limit the growth 
thereafter. So we can enact whatever health care plan we choose to.
  I will be for a conservative fiscal health care plan. Others may have 
a different view. But we are neutralizing this, as far as what health 
care plan we adopt. Then that becomes the baseline and we measure 
growth thereafter.
  To reiterate, Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing, along with 
Senator Domenici expresses the sense of the Senate that we should enact 
legislation that places a cap on the growth of individual entitlement, 
or mandatory, spending programs, excluding Social Security, deposit 
insurance, and net interest, beginning in 1996. As an aside, I would 
like to remind my colleagues that it was a year ago today that Senator 
Domenici and I offered a similar amendment to last year's budget 
resolution.
  This cap would not reduce entitlement spending. It would limit the 
rate of future growth of entitlement spending to the increases needed 
to cover increases in the number of beneficiaries, plus increases for 
inflation, plus an extra allowance of 4 percent in 1996, 3.5 percent in 
1997, 3 percent in 1998, and 2 percent in 1999 and thereafter. If a 
mandatory program exceeded its cap there would be a grace period of not 
less than 60 days for the Congress to enact legislation that would 
bring the overall's spending back into line. If such legislation is not 
enacted, a sequester on that specific program will result. We would not 
require one entitlement program to suffer because another program 
exceeded its limit.
  This cap on the growth of mandatory spending was a central feature of 
the fiscal plan recommended 2 years ago by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies Strengthening of America Commission, which I 
cochaired along with the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, the Senator from New Mexico. The Commission included Members 
of Congress from both parties, business leaders, academics, and mayors.


             uncontrolled spending is not being controlled

  Many citizens may not understand the difference between the way 
discretionary programs work and the way mandatory programs work. No 
money can be spent for discretionary programs unless the Congress 
specifically appropriates the money. This category of spending is 
called controllable.
  Entitlement, or mandatory programs make up over one-half of the 
Federal budget. Many of these programs work automatically, such as 
payments to retirees. No action is needed by Congress for the money to 
be spent. Other programs, such as Medicaid, actually are appropriated 
by Congress each year but in language that provides such sums as 
necessary. That is why this category of spending is called 
uncontrollable. One glaring flaw in our budget process is that it lacks 
any discipline on mandatory spending programs.
  A good example is the 1990 budget summit agreement. That agreement 
placed caps on discretionary spending. If, for any reason, we want to 
spend more than those caps--for Hurricane Andrew, the floods in the 
Midwest last summer, or for the recent earthquake which struck the Los 
Angeles area--we need to pass a bill and have the President sign it.

  But for entitlement programs, as well as for taxes, that budget 
agreement created a pay-as-you-go system. What this system means is 
that if you want to create a new spending program, or expand an 
existing one, you have to find an offset. And to that extent, it has 
succeeded. But this pay as you go system does nothing to control the 
spending growth of the existing entitlement programs.
  So we have created an important distinction in our treatment of 
discretionary programs and mandatory programs. For discretionary 
programs, the presumption is that no additional money is spent unless 
we take a positive action to do so.
  But for mandatory programs, the presumption is: just let the programs 
run, no matter what they cost, unless we specifically decide to take 
some action. But the catch is, the Budget Act does not require any 
action.
  This is why we need an entitlement cap. While we can control 
mandatory programs without one, we do not have to, and we do not. There 
is no process to force the hard choices that almost everybody says we 
should be making.


                     Growth of Entitlement Spending

  Mr. President, under this budget resolution, during the next 5 years, 
we will be spending $1.3 trillion more on entitlements than we did in 
the last 5 years, compared to an increase in discretionary spending of 
just $60 billion over the same 5 years. The cap envisioned by this 
amendment would still allow entitlement spending to grow faster than 
the increases needed to keep up with inflation and population growth.
  I might point out that in domestic discretionary spending, the caps 
are basically flat and will not allow those programs to keep pace with 
either inflation or population growth, let alone both. Any many of 
those domestic discretionary programs, such as Pell grants or Head 
Start, see their requirements increase due to inflation or growth in 
eligible population. Yet the discretionary caps force those programs to 
make do with what they have, unless Congress can find cuts somewhere 
else, such as Defense, to fund an increase. Even if we adopt this 
amendment, entitlement programs would still not have to operate under 
the strict discipline we enforce on discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, I want to make a few points on the difference between 
what has been happening with mandatory spending and discretionary 
spending.

  In accordance with the new caps on discretionary spending in last 
year's reconciliation bill, the discretionary spending requested in the 
President's fiscal year 1995 budget over the next 5 years represents an 
increase of just 2 percent over the amount we spent in this area over 
the last 5 years. That is a total of $60 billion more discretionary 
spending over the next 5 years compared to the last 5 years.
  Of course the reason that overall discretionary total increases by 
only 2 percent is that over the next 5 years, even if the Congress 
agrees with the President's request not to cut Defense any further, we 
will spend $190 billion less on defense than we did during the last 5 
years.
  During the next 5 years domestic spending will increase by a slightly 
larger amount over what was spent in the last 5 years, an increase of 
$250 billion more than in the last 5 years. The total of the Defense 
decrease of $190 billion and the domestic increase of $250 billion is a 
total discretionary increase of $60 billion over the next 5 years.
  While discretionary spending would be 2 percent higher over the next 
5 years, entitlement spending would increase by 42 percent, or $1.3 
trillion, during the next 5 years. About $440 billion of this will be 
in the self-financing Social Security Program, but even including the 
effects of the President's health care reform proposal, assuming all 
the savings in his plan are achieved, health care spending in the next 
5 years is projected to be $790 billion higher than in the last 5 
years. I should note that the spending in the President's plan is 
offset in part by increased revenues from cigarette taxes and other 
areas, and I am only addressing the spending side of the health care 
equation right now.
  Finally, Mr. President, interest payments on the debt, even with 
lower interest rates, would be $190 billion higher over the next 5 
years than in the last 5--this alone cancels all the defense savings.
  Mr. President, clearly the real problem in reducing the deficit is 
restraining the runaway growth in entitlement spending, not in cutting 
discretionary spending. We cannot solve the deficit problem by trying 
to cut Defense enough to keep up with the increases in the other 
categories of the budget. We must restrain the growth in the so-called 
mandatory category of the budget.
  The part of the budget that has had constraints--caps--put on it--the 
programs covered by the Appropriations Committee--has been controlled. 
The mandatory programs that have not been subject to any discipline 
have not been controlled.

  Mr. President, let me simply restate what we are talking about when 
we say we want to cap the growth of entitlements. Words like cap and 
cut get used pretty loosely sometimes.
  For instance, defense spending in 1995 will be lower than defense 
spending in 1994. Period. That is a decrease. Or if, for instance, 
Federal workers do not get a pay raise next year, and I am not 
advocating this, they will not get any less money, but their salaries 
will fall behind inflation. That is a freeze. What we are proposing for 
entitlements is not a decrease. It is not a freeze. It is more money 
than the programs had last year. More money to keep up with inflation. 
More money if more people are eligible for the program than last year. 
But what we are saying is, let us hold the increase down to what you 
need to cover inflation and additional people eligible for the program 
and the additional growth allowance we provide.


                       why not make specific cuts

  Mr. President, last year we heard several criticisms of our proposal 
to cap mandatory spending. But there was one criticism that has been 
repeated over and over: An entitlement cap is not specific--why don't 
you name the specific cuts you are going to make?
  Let us be clear on one thing. The entitlement cap is no different--no 
more specific, but also no less specific, than any other recommendation 
in this budget resolution. If anyone can find a single specific cut 
anywhere in the language of this resolution, I would like them to show 
it to me. You cannot cut specific programs in a budget resolution, 
regardless of what program you claim your amendment would cut. If we 
cut specific programs on this bill we would not need to do 
authorization and appropriation bills.
  If anyone can find anything in the report language--let alone the 
resolution--about how we are going to make the defense cuts required by 
this resolution, let me know. The Armed Services Committee will have to 
figure out how to make these cuts before the year is over, but there 
are no specifics in here on how we are going to make this defense cut.


                    why a cap on mandatory spending

  Mr. President, there are several reasons why this cap on the growth 
of entitlement spending makes sense:
  First, simple math. If we agree we have to get the deficit under 
control, it is obvious we cannot do it with almost two-thirds of the 
budget off the table. This includes payments on the interest on the 
debt plus entitlement spending.
  Second, accountability and responsibility. Even if we did not have a 
crippling debt and budget deficit, leaving half the budget on autopilot 
is a bad way to run our fiscal policy. Imagine if the Federal Reserve 
ran our monetary policy that way, just taking its hands off the rudder 
and letting the money supply grow according to formulas written years 
ago.
  Third, common sense. Our entitlement cap says programs can stay at 
their current level, with their current benefits, and grow with the 
general rate of inflation plus the number of people eligible--under 
current criteria--to receive benefits plus an additional allowance. In 
my view, this is a straightforward rule of thumb the American people 
can understand and support.
  Mr. President, is it unreasonable to, first, set up an alarm that 
tells us when spending on a mandatory program is not staying within 
this common-sense formula and, second, a requirement that when this 
happens, we have to do something about it besides going deeper into 
debt?
  Fourth, a cap is not a cut. The most important message in the 
entitlement cap proposal has not gotten through to a lot of people. The 
point is that if we can use this cap on the growth of entitlement 
spending--not a cap on spending, a cap on the growth in spending--to 
keep spending on entitlement programs growing at the overall rate of 
inflation, while taking account of the number of people eligible, we 
can come close to achieving a balanced budget over a 10-year period 
while still keeping the safety net intact, and without touching Social 
Security.


                         What About Health Care

  Mr. President, some people will say we cannot control entitlement 
spending because it would make health care reform impossible. Frankly, 
Mr. President, I do not understand that logic.
  Mr. President, the issue of health care reform is central to 
controlling entitlement spending, and entitlement spending is the key 
to the deficit. We all agree on that point. The disagreement seems to 
be whether we should enact health care reform first, without any 
guarantee that it saves money, and without any fiscal guidance, or 
whether we need to lock in a guarantee that requires the savings before 
you know the specifics of the health care proposal.
  Mr. President, I do not believe this amendment conflicts with health 
care reform. I think it reinforces it. If you argue that this amendment 
will stop us from passing health care reform, what you are really 
saying is that health care reform will not save money. That is a 
crucial point, Mr. President.
  CBO is projecting huge deficits if we continue our current policies. 
They project the deficit will grow to $365 billion 10 years from now, 
and that is including the Social Security surplus. Without counting the 
surplus from the Social Security trust fund, which masks the real size 
of our annual deficit, the deficit will be over $500 billion in that 
year. If health care reform is not going to reduce the deficit, then I 
think we need to know that.

  If there are no savings to be had from health care reform, then we 
are facing a future of $300 billion to $400 billion deficits, with no 
additional savings to be had from health care--this will be after 
health care reform--and defense will be at rock bottom--how are we 
going to deal with that? Where are we going to find the cuts then?
  Mr. President, I simply do not believe that Americans can afford to 
enact comprehensive health care reform that does not restrain spending 
on health care. I understand that the President has reiterated that 
health care reform will save substantial amounts of money. Let me make 
clear that this amendment does not dictate to the Finance Committee a 
certain dollar level that health care must stay under for 1995. Any 
health care reform package that is allowed under this resolution as 
currently worded is still allowed. But what our amendment says is, once 
we pass a health care reform bill and establish a spending level for 
health care, that level cannot grow at the out-of-control rates that 
health care reform has been growing at.
  Mr. President, one of the problems in the Congress in the last 10 
years is that virtually every serious budget debate or amendment is 
treated as being for or against the President in power. I think it is 
past due time for both Democrats and Republicans to get beyond this 
simplistic description of the problems our country faces. I hope that 
we will begin examining issues on the basis of whether we are voting 
for or against our children and grandchildren.
  What are we going to say to them around the turn of the century when 
they ask--grandfather and grandmother--What were you doing when the 
country was piling up all this debt for us to pay?
  We have a train wreck in the making in the next century, Mr. 
President. We are building the biggest trap for our children and 
grandchildren in the history of our Nation.
  In 1994, we will borrow $62 billion from the Social Security trust 
fund. By the end of the century we will be borrowing $100 billion a 
year. In the year 2010 we will borrow over $200 billion. In the year 
2015 the total amount borrowed from the Social Security trust fund will 
reach $4.4 trillion. In the year 2016, just 22 years from now, we will 
have to pay out more from the Social Security trust fund than it 
receives in taxes. At that time less than 2 workers will support each 
beneficiary. In 1950, this ratio was 16 to 1.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, Maurice Chevalier used to say, ``old age isn't so bad 
when your consider the alternative.'' The same can be said about this 
amendment.
  Critics of the entitlement cap need to face the fact that the 
alternative--doing nothing on entitlements--is no alternative at all. 
Our current policies clearly are simply not sustainable.
  No solution to our fiscal problems is possible until we deal with 
entitlement spending. That is what this amendment does, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
New Mexico. I want the Senator from Missouri to speak also. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield a minute to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend Senator Nunn for this. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor.
  As I understand it, what Senator Nunn has done with this proposal is 
to say whatever health care plan the Congress of the United States 
adopts, you account for that, put it in the baseline of the American 
expenditure programs----
  Mr. NUNN. Raise or lower, depending.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Raise or lower. And then all you say after that is that 
cost has to be controlled in the outyears so it does not increase more 
than the percentages stated in the resolution.
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator is entirely correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So you are assuming Congress will pass a pay-go, 
reasonable plan. You may not be for it, you may be for it. It may be 
very generous. It may be very liberal. But once it is in place, it has 
to control expenditures and you are saying you found a way to do that?
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator is entirely correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is why I support it. I think we must do that or, 
indeed, we will increase the deficits with health care rather than 
bring them down or keep them at the pay-go level when adopted.
  Mr. NUNN. The Senator is correct. I reserve whatever time I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I do not think there is any disagreement 
about the basic thrust of the proposal of the Senator from Georgia, and 
that is controlling the growth of the health accounts of the Federal 
budget. I think the numbers are very clear that the growth in health 
care costs is the driving force behind the expansion of the 
entitlements and that is the problem with regard to the deficit.
  According to calculations I have seen, 83 percent of the growth in 
entitlements is directly attributable to two accounts, Medicare and 
Medicaid, the two health care accounts. That is the problem; 83 percent 
of the growth in entitlements, which is what is driving the deficit, 
are two accounts, Medicare and Medicaid. So the numbers are very clear. 
That is why we accepted the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
our distinguished friend, the Senator from Florida.
  But it appears to me the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
Georgia at this time is just premature. The clear fact is that Congress 
in both Houses and in numerous committees, at the present time, this 
week, is directly embroiled in the process of constructing health 
reform legislation.
  Many of us met for almost 2 hours yesterday with the President, the 
Vice President, and the First Lady and talked about essentially nothing 
but health care reform and health care legislation, and that was the 
purpose of the meeting.
  I agree with the intent of this amendment, and I interpret it to mean 
that credible health reform is going to lower the deficit. But I do not 
understand the idea of trying to impose a binding number on the 
attendant deficit reduction before we have even written the legislation 
that does the reform and produces the savings.
  I say to my friend from Georgia that most of the health care reform 
proposals that I am aware of--from that offered by President Clinton to 
that offered by my colleague, Congressman Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, of 
which I think the distinguished Senator from Georgia is a cosponsor and 
which I have said favorable things about--most of the proposed plans 
employ some share of Medicare or Medicaid savings to pay for some of 
the costs associated with fundamental alteration in the health care 
system.
  Whether it is expanded coverage through alliances or some kind of 
tax-free health insurance or some other kind of tax incentive to 
encourage people to become covered with health insurance, many of these 
proposals assume offsets from Medicare and Medicaid.
  Why in the world should we seek to bind ourselves now to a totally 
arbitrary set of Medicare and Medicaid savings that will harm our 
ability to fashion the most rational kind of health reform?
  How, when we are approaching one of the most daunting challenges--I 
think the most daunting challenge on the domestic level--the most 
daunting challenge in public policy we face I think in 50 years, and 
that is doing something about health care and doing something about 
health care costs--why in the world would we want to come out now and 
build a cage or construct a prison of arbitrary numbers before we even 
set the policy? I just do not think, Mr. President, that is the way we 
ought to go.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Georgia and my friend from New 
Mexico have expressed these concerns for many years. I share their 
concerns. We are finally around to the point now where I think we all 
agree that the problem is health care costs. We can quit talking about 
entitlements and mandatories as if that is something abstract, you put 
a lid on that, and that solves all the problem. We have finally come 
around to all recognizing that essentially the problem is health care 
costs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the amendment.


                Amendment No. 1602 to Amendment No. 1601

 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Congress that health care reform 
                should contribute to deficit reduction)

  Mr. SASSER. I send to the desk an amendment in the second degree to 
the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1602 to amendment No. 1601.

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, this amendment is essentially self-
explanatory. It simply in the preamble sets out that millions of 
Americans fear that job loss, illness, or preexisting condition will 
deprive them of health insurance. It indicates that some 39 million 
Americans, most of them working Americans, cannot now afford health 
insurance. It states that the cost of health care in America is growing 
at a rate of 11 percent per year, more than double the annual inflation 
rate.
  The only areas of the Federal budget that are growing faster than the 
economy as a whole are the health care accounts. The amendment further 
states that we must constrain the growth of these mandatory programs 
that are growing faster than the Consumer Price Index, plus population, 
plus 4 percent and that almost all health care reform proposals, both 
Democratic and Republican, assume some savings from Federal health care 
programs which will be used to offset the cost of comprehensive health 
care reform proposals designed to correct the above-listed problems.
  The amendment concludes by indicating that it is the sense of the 
Congress that Congress should adopt comprehensive health care reform 
that will curtail the growth of health care spending and devote the 
savings both to lower the deficit and to offset the cost of whatever 
comprehensive health care reform legislation that Congress ultimately 
enacts.
  The thrust of this proposal, Mr. President, is essentially self-
explanatory. We endorse the idea of controlling spending in the health 
care accounts, just as the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by 
the distinguished Senator from Florida did.
  But we do not bind ourselves to a specific number and, thereby, 
enforce distortions in our eventual health care reform effort. What we 
are trying to do with this amendment in the second degree is simply 
escape the distortion of setting arbitrary limits before the health 
care plan or the health care proposal is even enacted by the Congress. 
It gives us the latitude and the flexibility, I think, to deal with the 
problem.
  I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is on his feet. 
Does he wish some time to speak on this matter?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator would be very honored if the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee would yield him some time.
  Mr. SASSER. I will be pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia the remainder of my time, reserving 1 minute.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator is very courageous and 
very generous.
  I will, of course, support the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, 
although it says sense of the Congress, so I guess that is what it is. 
I think it is particularly important to pass it in order to defeat the 
underlying amendment, or the amendment which would be before us if this 
amendment failed.
  This is the same battle as we were in last year, except the stakes 
are a whole lot higher. We won the battle last year by 4 votes. I call 
attention to my colleagues that winning my 4 votes was not much of a 
margin last year. The stakes are far more dangerous this year if the 
Domenici-Nunn-Thurmond amendment were to be adopted.
  Entitlement caps hold health care spending for the elderly, for the 
poor hostage to the forces that are not predictable nor controllable, 
absent comprehensive health care reform, as the distinguished Senator 
from Tennessee has been saying.
  I know in arguing against a similar proposal of the Senator from New 
Mexico and the Senator from Georgia last year, I told my colleagues I 
thought it imperative that we do our health care work, that we do it 
diligently and we do it promptly--that was a year ago--that we not try 
to put our fingers in the entitlement dike, only to have the entire 
system overflow the containment and retainer walls.
  The President has now given us the road map to do it. Now it is in 
our hands. We should do it responsibly. If you want to control the 
deficit, do health care reform. I am going to try to make this explicit 
and even, I hope, interestingly clear.
  I hope we can count on our colleagues to vote for that same budget 
discipline, I might say, when it comes time for health care reform, 
because that health care reform will be a budget discipline type of 
effort.
  In fact, it was precisely the promise of health care reform in the 
form of sincere and absolute commitment to passing comprehensive 
systematic health care reform made both by the President and the 
majority of us in the Senate that staved off this kind of an amendment 
last year by 4 votes.
  The argument for health care reform as the most appropriate 
legislative vehicle to deal with the real issues raised by an 
entitlement cap has only been strengthened in the intervening years 
since we debated this. It is just a much stronger case that we should 
win by 20 votes this year, not by 4 votes. That is, the Domenici-Nunn 
amendment should lose by 20 votes this year, not by 4 votes as it lost 
last year, especially if you are suggesting the caps could be very 
flexible or adjustable over the next few years.
  Maybe I should just say, Mr. President, that inflation and 
entitlements, with the exception of health care spending, are not 
causing the deficit to increase relative to GDP. There are four major 
causes: The growth in health care costs, the decline in general 
revenues as a percent of GDP, net interest cost, and a sluggish 
economy. Health care is the reason. The growth in entitlements is not 
the reason. Health care reform is the answer. The amendment of the 
Senator from Tennessee I hope will pass.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.


                    Amendment No. 1602, as Modified

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I modify my amendment to reflect all 
changes made by the Gorton amendment No. 1559, the Boxer amendment No. 
1562, and the Specter amendment No. 1565.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. SASSER. This modification, I say for the benefit of my 
colleagues, simply ensures that the changes made in the resolution 
during its consideration in the Chamber are reflected in the amendment 
that I offered as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment 
     and insert the following:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,242,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,303,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,368,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,437,889,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,509,589,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,149,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,202,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,256,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,314,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,372,289,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--(A) For purposes of comparison with 
     the maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of 
     the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,283,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,352,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,411,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,485,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,485,100,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,124,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $1,183,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $1,241,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,241,898,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,290,698,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--(A) For purposes of comparison with the 
     maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $238,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $252,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $272,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $275,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $294,900,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the amounts of the deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $246,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $258,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $274,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $283,100,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,963,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,278,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,611,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,945,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,289,700,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $26,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $32,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $33,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $35,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $37,800,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $164,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $163,500,000,000.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 5. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 6. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,780,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,648,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,671,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,199,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,602,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,300,000,000..
       (B) Outlays, $122,730,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,730,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,895,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,453,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,568,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,705,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,330,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,828,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,234,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,440,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,823,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,255,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,406,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,066,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,491,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,493,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (21) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $311,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $331,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $347,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $364,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $383,300,000,000.
       (22) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,118,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,938,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,492,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,982,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,589,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (24) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT HEALTH CARE REFORM SHOULD 
                   CONTRIBUTE TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) millions of Americans fear that job loss, illness, or a 
     pre-existing condition will deprive them of health insurance;
       (2) some 39 million Americans, most of them working 
     Americans, are without health insurance;
       (3) the cost of health care in America is growing at a rate 
     of 8 percent a year, more than double the annual inflation 
     rate;
       (4) the only areas in the Federal budget that are growing 
     faster than the economy as a whole are the health care 
     programs, growing at 11 percent a year;
       (5) we must constrain the growth of those mandatory 
     programs that are growing faster than the Consumer Price 
     Index plus population plus 4 percent in 1996, 3.5 percent in 
     1997, 3 percent in 1998, and 2 percent in 1999;
       (6) almost all health care reform proposals, both 
     Democratic and Republican assume some savings from Federal 
     health care programs will be used to offset the costs of 
     comprehensive health reform proposals designed to correct the 
     above listed problems.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that Congress should adopt comprehensive health care reform 
     that will curtail the growth of health care spending and 
     devote the savings both to lower the deficit and to offset 
     the cost of whatever comprehensive health reform legislation 
     that Congress ultimately enacts.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Does the time in opposition to 
the amendment belong to the Senator from New Mexico?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 3 minutes, and I will yield the 
remaining 2 minutes to Senator Nunn.
  I hope the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Tennessee 
will listen to this explanation.
  Frankly, this is a post-health care reform amendment. It says the 
following: After we have put into place under pay-go, meaning a neutral 
health care reform package, after that is done, the Nunn-Domenici 
amendment says do not let happen to that program what has happened to 
health care in the past. Do not let its costs skyrocket, thus creating 
an imbalance on the pay as you go. Rather, put a realistic cap on that 
so that after you have adopted health care, you do not let it get out 
of control.
  It does nothing to what kind of health care you can pass, no 
limitation on what can be in it. In fact, I say to my friend from West 
Virginia, so long as it is pay-go, which you agree to abide by, it sets 
no limit. But it says after that, as the years go on, for the next 5 
years, you cannot let the costs go wild because the pay as you go is 
gone then. This just says at that point you put a cap on it.
  I think we ought to do that. This is rather profound public policy. 
If we do not do it now, we ought to do it in the health care plan that 
comes through this place or else we will be right back in the same 
muddle after health care reform because the savings we claim will yield 
to spiraling costs growth, and we will not have a mechanism to force it 
down.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I can only echo what the Senator from New 
Mexico said. This amendment that would be wiped out by the Sasser 
amendment does not preclude any kind of health care plan that this body 
and the House and the President decide to agree on. It becomes 
baseline.
  Those who would oppose this on the basis of health care now are 
basically saying we have no confidence that what we are going to pass 
is going to save money. We are going to have to keep it open-ended like 
we have in the past, and that is what has resulted--$800 billion we are 
going to spend over the next 5 years compared to the previous 5 years.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple choice for people around here 
who want to do something about the budget deficit. We all make speeches 
on it. Everybody knows where the money is going. It is going into the 
entitlement programs, primarily health care but not exclusively health 
care. Do we want to ever say there is any limit on entitlements? Are we 
going to say that we have no limit on entitlements from now on? It just 
keeps on going; it keeps on going; it keeps on going. No limits; no 
closed doors; no fiscal discipline whatsoever.
  This is a clear vote. There is nothing wrong with the Sasser 
substitute. It is language with which everybody would agree. The 
difficulty is everybody who votes should know this. A vote for the 
Sasser amendment is a vote to do nothing on entitlements, to do nothing 
on the 50 percent of the budget that is out of control, to have no 
advanced restraint whatsoever about what will happen after we pass a 
health care bill.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NUNN. So this is a clear vote. If you want to have no restraint 
on the budget, on the entitlement section, vote for the Sasser 
amendment. If you want an opportunity to begin to have some gentle 
restraint on entitlements, over a carefully calibrated period of time, 
then you would vote against Sasser and vote for the Nunn-Domenici 
amendment. A vote for the Sasser amendment will kill the Nunn 
amendment, so a vote for the Sasser amendment is a vote against the 
Nunn-Domenici amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NUNN. I do not believe I have any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 45 seconds.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have 45 seconds. I yield 22\1/2\ of it to the 
Senator.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator. I have heard nobody on this 
floor on either side of the aisle say that any plan has more than 25 
votes for passage. That is, a health care reform plan. Therefore, this 
entire argument is being predicated upon something which at this 
particular moment is not likely to happen.
  So I remind my colleagues that if health care does not pass this 
year, and the votes are not there yet, we are stuck with this draconian 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is nothing draconian about this 
measure. There is no health care plan around that purports to try to 
control the Federal Government's cost of health care. The President 
proposes to control the private sector cost of health care. This merely 
says whatever you adopt, whenever you adopt it, you cannot let those 
costs get back out of control because you set the limit in this 
amendment of a realistic growth but not a superinflated growth that 
will break the budget again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
Sasser amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Sasser 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be temporarily set aside to be disposed of following the Jeffords 
amendment No. 1585.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous 
consent that my amendment be withdrawn. I do so because I find the 
unusual situation where I think the majority of the people on my side 
of the aisle will vote for it but others object to some noneducation 
provisions of the amendment. We had an amendment earlier which the 
majority on the other side voted for it. So I think it clearly 
demonstrates that everybody is in favor of doing something as far as 
reordering our priorities to help on education and to assist with 
respect to the special education program in particular. We simply need 
to work out suitable offsets. Unfortunately, we have run out of time to 
fix this problem.
  I do not want to put us through another vote. I had hoped that a 
freeze on overhead would be a suitable offset for increased education 
funding; but others objected because it lowers the caps in fiscal years 
1996, 1997, and 1998 and, therefore, reduces the amount of money that 
can be spent in those years. I do intend to continue working for 
increased funding for education.
  So at this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1585) was withdrawn.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we are prepared to entertain another 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I inquire of the Presiding Officer, is there a Harkin 
amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There are two 
amendments pending, the Harkin amendment and the Dorgan amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1578

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, could we go to the Harkin amendment at the 
present time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, that will be the 
order.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to take exception to the premise 
behind the Harkin amendment. The need for ballistic missile defense is 
growing not diminishing. We can ill afford to be so short-sighted as to 
cut, or seriously limit, this critical technology. If we accept the 
limits proposed by the Senator from Iowa, there would be no funds to 
procure the systems our investment in research and development has 
enabled us to build. There would be no funds to build even the theater 
defenses everyone agrees we need for our forces abroad. This makes no 
sense militarily, and it makes no sense economically.
  Unfortunately, the demise of the Soviet Union did not eliminate the 
threat to this Nation or to its deployed forces from ballistic 
missiles. Not only are many of the missiles from the former Soviet 
Union still operational, they are now under more tenuous control than 
before. Furthermore, they are in hands of governments that are less 
stable and evolving rapidly in directions uncertain.
  In addition, ballistic missiles are proliferating around the world. 
Just last week the intelligence community confirmed that North Korea is 
developing two new missiles that will extend the threat of this hermit 
government by thousands of miles. Many other potentially hostile 
nations are developing or purchasing ballistic missiles; missiles that 
can threaten forward U.S. bases, Allied nation, deployed forces, or 
even the continental United States.
  Mr. President this is surely not the time to cut missile defense 
funds. We are moving into a less stable and, in many respects, more 
dangerous world. Undoubtedly the danger of a massive nuclear attack is 
less than during the cold war. But, the probability of a limited strike 
by one of many rogue regimes is much greater. Why would we reduce 
spending on our best insurance against an increasing threat? This 
defies logic.
  My colleagues would be wise to vote against the Harkin amendment and, 
at least, return the level of funding for ballistic missile defense 
request by the current administration.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Have the yeas and 
nays been vitiated on the Harkin amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been vitiated.
  Mr. SASSER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered on the Harkin 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection. I have conferred 
with those on our side who had objected. They indicated that I could 
concur in that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, has all time been yielded back on the 
Harkin amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to the Harkin amendment.
  The amendment of the Senator from Iowa (No. 1578) was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair. There is one 
remaining amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is one amendment in order, the Dorgan 
amendment on the sense of the Senate on Canadian wheat.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Gramm 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it in order to request the same at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan 
amendment be stricken from the list of amendments to be considered. We 
are advised that the proponent of that amendment does not wish to offer 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Gramm amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, for the information of Senators on the 
floor and those who may be watching in their offices or in committee 
meetings, we are now prepared to vote on the Gramm amendment No. 1598, 
and the Sasser-Nunn amendment No. 1601.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 1598

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. the pending question is the Gramm amendment. 
The question occurs on amendment No. 1598, offered by the Senator from 
Texas [Mr. Gramm]. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings], is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Bennett
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--61

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Hollings
       
  So the amendment (No. 1598) was rejected.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    amendment no. 1602, as modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Sasser 
second-degree amendment and to reject the entitlement cap amendment.
  The entitlement cap proposal claims to limit entitlement spending to 
reasonable levels, but it cannot pass the truth in advertising test--
because it is really a proposal to slash Medicare and Medicaid and 
block health reform. Federal health spending is the primary cause of 
the runaway growth in entitlement spending. The best way to deal with 
that problem is as part of comprehensive health reform, not in this 
arbitrary and counterproductive amendment.
  In the past decade, if we exclude Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security, entitlement spending has actually been rising more slowly 
than the CPI. If we look at the impact of this proposal, Medicaid and 
Medicare are the only entitlement programs likely to be affected by the 
proposed cap, since all other entitlements are under the cap.
  These figures make the bottom line painfully clear. If this amendment 
passes, health care reform is dead. Instead of using savings in current 
health spending to reform our system and save workers, employers, and 
governments billions of dollars in future health care, we will be in 
the position of arbitrarily cutting billions of dollars from Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  Medicaid is a frayed safety net, but it is the only help available 
today to the millions of poor and uninsured.
  Almost 40 million Americans are uninsured, and the number is rising 
every year. Surely this is not the way to cut back on the only safety 
net they have. A Medicaid cap hurts the most vulnerable, including poor 
children, pregnant women, poor elderly, and persons with disabilities. 
A Medicaid cap will require cuts in eligibility, services, and payment 
rates. None of these are viable options for underserved and vulnerable 
populations already facing serious barriers to adequate care.
  Arbitrarily capping Medicaid will also shift costs to the States as 
they struggle to meet the Federal mandates in Medicaid without 
sufficient Federal resources. Even during the Reagan years, Congress 
rejected an equally harsh proposal to cap Medicaid. Let's not make the 
mistake today that we avoided making then.
  Deep cuts in Medicare would be equally unjustified. Today, Medicare 
pays hospitals 10 percent less than the cost of caring for elderly 
patients.
  The gap between Medicare payment levels and private payment levels 
continue to widen. Every dollar cut from Medicare means a dollar in 
additional costs for average citizens and for business, as health care 
providers seek to recover Medicare underpayments by shifting costs to 
others.
  Cuts in Medicare are a false economy. They are also hazardous to the 
health of senior citizens.
  As the gap widens between what private patients pay and what the 
Government pays hospitals and doctors increasingly view the elderly as 
second class citizens.
  It is shameful that the poor and uninsured are so often denied the 
services they need because they cannot pay. The shame will be 
compounded if the same fate befalls senior citizens because the 
Government has failed to keep the promise of Medicare.
  The only other alternative to stay below the entitlement caps 
proposed in this amendment would be to dramatically reduce or eliminate 
funding for other entitlements that are not going up faster than the 
costs of living. That would mean cutting retirement benefits for 
members of the Armed Forces; denying school lunches and breakfasts to 
hungry children; food stamps to needy families; income assistance to 
the poorest senior citizens and people with disabilities; and loans to 
college students.
  There is no justification to punish all of these innocent bystanders 
because costs are out of control for Medicare and Medicaid.
  There is a realistic solution to the soaring cost of Medicare and 
Medicaid. It is also a solution that is long overdue. We need 
comprehensive health reform that meets two fundamental tests. It must 
guarantee every American basic health insurance coverage. And it must 
put in place a credible program to control health care costs--not a 
program that simply slashes Government spending while ignoring the 
basic inflationary problems in the current health care system. 
President Clinton's Health Security Act meets these tests. Even those 
who do not support the President's proposal, if they support any 
serious health reform, cannot vote for entitlement caps without voting 
against such reform.
  I urge the Senate to accept the President's challenge and work for 
health reform. Capping Government health spending and shifting more 
costs to the private sector is not the answer. It would only make all 
of our other problems worse.
  An entitlement cap is not a true saving. It is a tax on the elderly, 
the poor, and middle-class Americans, and it deserves to be rejected.


                vote on amendment no. 1602, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1602 offered by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] 
to amendment No. 1601 offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn]. 
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--53

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mitchell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cohen
     Hollings
       
  So the amendment (No. 1602) was rejected.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays on the motion to table the motion to reconsider be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table.
  Without objection, the motion to table is agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                    amendment no. 1601, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and 
Senator Nunn. It is a modification of the amendment that is pending.
  Mr. SASSER. It is the modification of the pending amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it is the modification that we have discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       Fiscal year 1995; $1,242,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996; $1,303,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997; $1,368,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998; $1,437,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999; $1,509,600,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995; $1,149,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996; $1,202,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997; $1,257,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998; $1,315,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999; $1,372,300,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--(A) For purposes of comparison with 
     the maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of 
     the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995; $1,216,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996; $1,283,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997; $1,352,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998; $1,412,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999; $1,485,100,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995; $1,124,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996; $1,183,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997; $1,241,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998; $1,290,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999; $1,349,600,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--(A) For purposes of comparison with the 
     maximum deficit amount under sections 601(a)(1) and 606 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and for purposes of the 
     enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995; $238,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996; $252,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997; $272,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998; $275,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999; $294,900,000,000.
       (B) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security Act 
     (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund), the amounts of the deficits are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $246,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $258,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $274,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $272,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $283,100,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $4,963,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $5,278,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $5,611,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,945,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $6,289,700,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $26,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $32,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $33,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $35,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $37,800,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $199,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $174,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $164,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $164,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $163,500,000,000.

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

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

     SEC. 4 DISPLAY OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT TRUST FUND BALANCES

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

     SEC. 5. SOCIAL SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 6. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct 
     loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments 
     for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,000, 000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,400, 000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $258,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,600,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $18,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $16,500,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments. $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays $21,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,700,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,900,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $7,400,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $117,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1196:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,000,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $103,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $95,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $96,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $99,500,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,100,000,000.
       (c) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $3,600,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $5,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $19,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,200,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,100,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $16,800,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $11,200,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $215,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund:
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $219,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $220,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $234,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $229,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $249,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $272,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $32,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,300,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,400,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,500,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,300,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $282,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $297,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $314,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (21) The corresponding levels of gross interest on the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $311,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1996: $331,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $347,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $364,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $383,300,000,000.
       (22) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$11,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (23) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (24) For purposes of section 710 of the Social Security 
     Act, Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1995:
       (A) New budget authority, -$33,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1996:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1997:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations. $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations. $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this amendment just makes it 
absolutely certain and clear that there is no prehealth-care impact. In 
other words, these attempts to control entitlement expenditures will 
only take place postadoption of whatever health care plan the U.S. 
Congress adopts.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. We explained this amendment in a very clear way; that this 
amendment will allow a health care plan to be adopted and that plan 
will become the baseline. We found that technically the amendment at 
the desk was not drafted in that technical sense in clarity. This makes 
it absolutely clear by this modification that the baseline for health 
care will be whatever we pass, whether it is lower or whether it is 
higher. And that then will be restrained according to the formula in 
the bill.
  So I urge adoption of the modification.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the Nunn 
amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1601), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SASSER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________