[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2711-S2718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 17--SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                         FOR THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. DOMENICI submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred to the Committee on the Budget:

                            S. Con. Res. 17

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 1998.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this resolution is

[[Page S2712]]

     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998 
     including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 as required by section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998.

                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Deficit and discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 202. Adjustments to limits.
Sec. 203. Tax reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 204. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
                      TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
     fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution--
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,164,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,213,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,267,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,327,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,389,300,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,200,000,000.
       (C) The amounts for Federal Insurance Contributions Act 
     revenues for hospital insurance within the recommended levels 
     of Federal revenues are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $113,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $119,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $125,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $130,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $136,824,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,360,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,415,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,449,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,480,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,522,700,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $1,358,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $1,405,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $1,445,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $1,456,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $1,497,700,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $-193,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $-191,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $-178,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $-128,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $-108,400,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $5,637,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $5,870,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $6,089,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $6,258,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $6,404,100,000,000.
       (6) Direct loan obligations.--The appropriate levels of 
     total new direct loan obligations are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $33,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $34,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $36,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $37,099,000,000.
       (7) Primary loan guarantee commitments.--The appropriate 
     levels of new primary loan guarantee commitments are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1998: $315,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $324,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $328,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $332,063,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $335,141,000,000.

     SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, 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 1998: $402,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $422,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $442,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $461,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $482,825,000,000.
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302, 602, 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 1998: $317,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $330,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $343,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $358,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $373,700,000,000.

     SEC. 103. 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 1998 through 2002 for each major functional 
     category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $278,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $269,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $1,050,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,966,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $12,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,021,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,077,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,122,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $13,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,178,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $14,217,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,050,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,078,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,109,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.

[[Page S2713]]

       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,141,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,174,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $30,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $32,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $34,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $9,620,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,047,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $11,071,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,960,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $10,965,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $6,660,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $4,739,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $245,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,887,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $253,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,238,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $255,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,574,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $257,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,680,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $259,897,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $155,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $135,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,867,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $2,943,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,020,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,098,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $3,180,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $2,475,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $12,328,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $20,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,092,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $21,899,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $13,926,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $14,701,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $24,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $15,426,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,676,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $85,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $142,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $142,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $217,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $217,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

[[Page S2714]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $226,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $243,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $45,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $243,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $75,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $110,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $145,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $170,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $37,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,029,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $27,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,068,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,671,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,000,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,177,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $26,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,249,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,800,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $1,277,000,000.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, 
     $25,129,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,900,000,000.
       (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, $22,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
     Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $299,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, $309,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,200,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,400,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,500,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,600,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,700,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 1998:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 1999:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$37,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2000:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.

[[Page S2715]]

       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2001:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$39,100,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.
       Fiscal year 2002:
       (A) New budget authority, -$40,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$40,900,000,000.
       (C) New direct loan obligations, $0.
       (D) New primary loan guarantee commitments, $0.

     SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Senate Committees.--Not later than June 13, 1997, the 
     committees named in this subsection shall submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 
     After receiving those recommendations, the Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (1) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     reduce the deficit $41,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and 
     $283,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (2) Committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs.--The 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce 
     the deficit $544,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and 
     $2,892,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (3) Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.--
     The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that 
     reduce the deficit $376,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and 
     $18,004,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002.
       (4) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct 
     spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce 
     outlays $55,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $1,693,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (5) Committee on finance.--The Committee on Finance shall 
     report to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
     $2,903,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $110,122,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (6) Committee on governmental affairs.--The Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
     $914,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $7,235,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Senate Committee on 
     the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $0 in fiscal 
     year 1998 and $476,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002.
       (8) Committee on labor and human resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction that reduce the deficit 
     $1,118,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $4,551,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       (9) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Senate Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending (as defined in 
     section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985) to reduce outlays $247,000,000 
     in fiscal year 1998 and $3,929,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
             TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

     SEC. 201. DEFICIT AND DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

         (a) Definitions.--
         (1) Unified deficit limits.--In this section, the term 
     ``deficit limit'' means--
         (A) with respect to fiscal year 1997, -$118,800,000,000.
         (B) with respect to fiscal year 1998, -$111,100,000,000.
         (C) with respect to fiscal year 1999, -$98,800,000,000.
         (D) with respect to fiscal year 2000, -$78,300,000,000.
         (E) with respect to fiscal year 2001, -$25,100,000,000; 
     and
         (F) with respect to fiscal year 2002, $0.
         (2) Discretionary limits.--In this section and for the 
     purposes of allocations made for the discretionary category 
     pursuant to section 302(a) or 602(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the term ``discretionary spending limit'' 
     means--
         (A) with respect to fiscal year 1998, for the 
     discretionary category: $503,901,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $541,376,000,000 in outlays;
         (B) with respect to fiscal year 1999, for the 
     discretionary category: $505,998,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $537,631,000,000 in outlays;
         (C) with respect to fiscal year 2000, for the 
     discretionary category: $504,791,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $536,888,000,000 in outlays;
         (D) with respect to fiscal year 2001, for the 
     discretionary category $506,049,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $531,311,000,000 in outlays; and
         (E) with respect to fiscal year 2002, for the 
     discretionary category: $510,397,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $530,536,000,000 in outlays.
         (b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
         (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider--
         (A) a revision of this resolution or any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 
     and 2002 (or amendment, motion, or conference report on such 
     a resolution) that provides--
         (i) discretionary spending in excess of the discretionary 
     spending limit for such fiscal year; or
         (ii) a deficit in excess of the deficit limit for such 
     fiscal year; or
         (B) any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on such bill or resolution) for fiscal year 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that would cause any of the 
     limits in this section (or suballocations of the 
     discretionary limits made pursuant to section 602(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to be exceeded.
         (2) Exception.--
         (A) In general.--This section shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.
         (B) Enforcement of discretionary limits in fy 1998.--
     Until the enactment of reconciliation legislation pursuant to 
     subsection (a) of section 104 of this resolution--
         (i) subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) shall not apply; 
     and
         (ii) subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall apply only 
     with respect to fiscal year 1995.
         (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
         (d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
         (e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, revenues, and deficits for a fiscal 
     year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

     SEC. 202. ADJUSTMENTS TO LIMITS.

         (a) Deficit Calculations.--As part of the information 
     included in the annual report of CBO to the Committees on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, CBO 
     shall include--
         (1) the amount, if any, the deficit for the prior year 
     was above the deficit limit in section 201 for such year;
         (2) the amount, if any, the deficit for the prior year 
     was below the deficit limit in section 201 for such year; and
         (3) the amount (if any) the projected deficit for the 
     budget year is below the deficit limit in section 201 for 
     such year.
         (b) Adjustment Calculations.--
         (1) Dividend.--
         (A) In general.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Chairman'') shall make an adjustment in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) by an amount equal to the smaller of the 
     estimate calculated pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (a).
         (B) Adjustments.--The Chairman shall--
         (i) increase the budget authority and outlay 
     discretionary spending limits in this resolution for the 
     budget year by an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount 
     determined pursuant to subparagraph (A); and
         (ii) after the adoption of the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for the budget year, credit the prior surplus 
     determined for the pay-as-you-go point of order by an amount 
     equal to 50 percent of the amount determined pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A).
         (2) Deficit excess.--If the deficit for the prior year 
     was above the deficit limit in section 201, the Chairman 
     shall reduce the deficit limit in this resolution for the 
     budget year by the amount determined pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1).

     SEC. 203. TAX RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

         (a) In General.--In the Senate, revenue and spending 
     aggregates may be reduced and allocations may be revised for 
     legislation that reduces revenues by providing family tax 
     relief, fuel tax relief, and incentives to stimulate savings, 
     investment, job creation, and economic growth if such 
     legislation will not increase the deficit for--
         (1) fiscal year 1998;
         (2) the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2002; or
         (3) the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
         (b) Revised Allocations.--Upon the consideration of 
     legislation pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the Senate may file with

[[Page S2716]]

     the Senate appropriately revised allocations under sections 
     302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates to carry out this 
     section. These revised allocations, functional levels, and 
     aggregates shall be considered for the purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations, functional 
     levels, and aggregates contained in this resolution.
         (c) Reporting Revised Allocations.--The appropriate 
     committee shall report appropriately revised allocations 
     pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 204. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

         The Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
         (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such 
     rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that 
     they are inconsistent therewith; and
         (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to 
     that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as my friends on the other side of the 
aisle like to point out, the Congressional Budget Act includes a 
timetable for Congress to adopt a budget resolution that includes 
having the Senate Budget Committee report a budget resolution by April 
1--it used to be May but it was moved back to April 1--and the 
conference with the House is supposed to be completed by April 15. 
What, of course, is not being said is the simple fact that since 1987, 
when we moved the completion date from May 15 to April 15--only once in 
those 11 years has the Congress ever met the April 15 deadline. Only 
three times has the Senate Budget Committee itself met the April 1 
deadline.
  Obviously, we have not been in charge of that committee most of those 
years that the Democrat majority on the other side was in charge. 
Nonetheless, this year the Senate Budget Committee received the 
President's budget on February 6. Incidentally, the President's budget 
was delayed a few days this year also. Nevertheless, the committee has 
engaged in many hearings and meetings on the President's budget. And 
only 17 days ago, on March 3, did the Congress receive the 
Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis of the President's 
budget. The final analysis is yet to be completed. And we all know that 
the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the President's budget set 
us back in our efforts to get this job done quickly. The President's 
plan did not achieve balance according to this preliminary report in 
the year 2002 without relying on some awkward triggering mechanisms.
  Yesterday, I, along with my fellow House Budget Committee Chairman 
and two ranking members, met with the President to discuss the budget 
before he left for Helsinki. We agreed that over the upcoming recess 
and early when we return we would work to identify and clarify our 
differences and attempt to seek some settlement of issues so that we 
might return together a bipartisan budget blueprint that will get us to 
balance in 2002 and keep us on a path to balance well into the next 
century.
  Our hope is that these meetings which will take place in the next 2 
weeks at the staff level to be followed by an intensive week of work on 
our return will yield a bipartisan budget blueprint with the President 
working with the Congress. I am not saying to the Senate that I am 
certain that will work, but I truly believe there is a probability that 
this could work. There has been a lot of behind-the-scenes work, and I 
think the issues are pretty well defined. Everybody wants to be rather 
specific in the solutions and that will take a little bit of time.
  As I expressed with the President yesterday, it is my fervent hope 
and I am committed to finding that common ground that will achieve the 
goal not for anybody's political gain but for the country's economic 
future.
  For today, however, it is obvious that the statutory deadline in the 
Senate will come while we are out on Easter recess and while staff is 
working on this budget process during the recess. So today, in order to 
ensure that the work of the Senate will go on, regardless of the 
outcome of these discussions, I am introducing two fully drafted budget 
resolutions that will be referred to the Budget Committee but will be 
automatically discharged from the committee on April 1 and placed back 
on the Senate Calendar. All of this occurs by statute which dictates 
that procedure. This is not unprecedented and certainly not 
unreasonable. My former Democratic chairmen, Senators Chiles and 
Sasser, routinely followed this process to provide that insurance the 
Senate needs that we would, indeed, be able to work our will even if 
the committee failed to report a resolution.
  So I want to make it clear that I do not intend that the Budget 
Committee not report a budget resolution. That is clearly not my 
intention. I would not want to be vested with that result because we 
have always been able to report a budget resolution out of the Budget 
Committee for better or for worse. It has always met its 
responsibilities, and I am certain we are going to do that again this 
year. But in the event we could not, either of these resolutions which 
I introduced today could be called off the calendar by the leader and 
the full Senate would then work its will on either of those as they are 
called up and made part of the Senate's ordinary business.
  The first resolution I am submitting today is simply the President's 
budget submitted back in February and reestimated by the Congressional 
Budget Office which we now know did not reach balance in the year 2002 
but resulted in a deficit of nearly $70 billion in that year. 
Obviously, I do not support this resolution. I am doubtful whether it 
would have much support of the Senate. And if it were called up by the 
Budget Committee in the Chamber, I would work to modify it 
significantly so that it did achieve balance and make these fundamental 
changes required to truly address the fiscal concerns that lie beyond 
2002.
  The second resolution I am introducing, I must say that I do not 
support it either and I do not think there would be a lot of Senators 
who would like the medicine provided in that budget resolution but, 
reluctantly, would be forced to vote for this if progress is not made 
in the next few weeks to modify the President's proposal, and that 
might be the case.
  This is my own resolution. It is not necessarily a Republican 
resolution. It is simply my effort to point out to all what would be 
required to reach balance in 2002 without any changes to the 
President's limited entitlement savings. This second resolution, based 
on the Congressional Budget Office benchmark used to analyze the 
President's budget, assumes the President's relatively low stated 
savings over the next 5 years in Medicare of $100 billion and Medicaid 
of $9 billion.
  This resolution assumes essentially the same defense spending pattern 
as the President had. The budget makes no assumptions about any changes 
to the Consumer Price Index and no changes to the Congressional Budget 
Office assumptions. This alternative budget resolution assumes no net 
tax reductions over the next 5 years.
  This resolution includes what might be thought of as a reverse 
trigger. It is based on the Congressional Budget Office economic 
forecast which is more conservative than the administration's, but the 
resolution would allow for an adjustment to domestic spending and 
permit tax cuts, if the administration's more optimistic economic 
assumptions turn out to be right, more right than the Congressional 
Budget Office, and the targets toward a balanced budget are being met 
on a specified timetable. Then there would be a trigger in instead of a 
trigger out as the President proposed to make up for an unbalanced 
budget.
  Finally, to achieve balance in 2002 with these assumptions, that 
portion of the Federal Government that represents annually appropriated 
accounts for most domestic agencies will be reduced by $183 billion 
over the next 5 years--nearly three times the level that the President 
assumes in his budget. I estimate that these domestic spending programs 
would see nearly a 20 percent reduction in the level of spending over 
the next 5 years. And, of course, that is estimating that they all take 
the same cut. To the extent that you cause some to increase others 
would have to be reduced even more. There would be absolutely no room 
for

[[Page S2717]]

any new initiatives and many existing programs would obviously have to 
be terminated.
  The message from this second resolution, if the goal is still to 
reach balance by 2002 using the conservative Congressional Budget 
Office forecasts and unless the President is willing to do more than 
his budget now envisions in mandatory programs or entitlement programs, 
not only would we not be able to fund any new initiatives, there would 
be significant reductions in programs such as education, environment, 
crime fighting, transportation, housing and others and neither would 
tax cuts in the President's budget or the congressional budget be 
possible.
  Again, this is not a preferred option on my part. I certainly am not 
recommending this to anyone. I think we can do much better, and I think 
we will. I think we can achieve balance and provide some relief, tax 
relief, to hard-working American families. I believe we do not need to 
devastate Government programs in the manner that I have just described.
  But it will require courage in dealing with entitlement spending, and 
I am asking that the President join with us in a bipartisan way to 
exhibit that courage. I am dedicated to making sure neither of these 
resolutions I have introduced today will ever need to be considered 
when we return from this recess, for they will not be considered if we 
produce a balanced budget in the committee and report it to the Senate, 
for that will be the subject matter before the Senate at that time.
  I believe that is entirely possible. If we cannot work something out 
with the President, which I am still hoping and indicating today there 
is a probability that we could, then we will work it out in the 
committee. One way or another it will come out of there, in my opinion 
perhaps bipartisan. Work is underway and I remain hopeful that a solid 
budget will be prepared that will enjoy the support of the President 
and the vast majority here in the Congress. I think we all understand 
the significance of these events this year, and I must say that I 
believe the President understands the significance.
  I mean, it seems to me that if, in fact, we do not reach some accord 
with the President, he can look forward to a very frustrating couple of 
years, achieving little or nothing, not moving toward a balanced budget 
with any dispatch and any earnestness. And I am not sure that is good 
for him.
  For Republicans, I am quite positive that we do not want 2 or 4 years 
of just constant turmoil, working by ourselves, among ourselves as 
Republicans, but rather should look forward to working this very 
important set of circumstances out in a bipartisan manner for the 
benefit of everyone.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my good friend, the distinguished chairman 
of the Budget Committee and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, has just introduced and explained to the Senate two 
alternative budget resolutions.
  He has, as a matter of courtesy, introduced the President's budget 
without change, but with the analysis and economic impacts that it will 
cost made by the Congressional Budget Office.
  The Senator from New Mexico has also introduced a budget, a sparse 
and bare-bones budget, that he feels will be required as almost the 
only responsible answer to the refusal of the President of the United 
States seriously to consider entitlement reform in his budget.
  In order to bring the budget of the United States in balance by the 
year 2002, in order to get the huge fiscal dividend of more than $75 
billion that economists tell us will result from a balanced budget, in 
order to provide the economic opportunities and the increased income to 
Americans across the country that a balanced budget will provide, in 
order to end the practice of spending money today and sending the bills 
to our children and grandchildren, the Senator from New Mexico has 
introduced a budget that does no more and no less in the way of 
entitlement reform than the inadequate proposals of the President of 
the United States, accepts the conservative projections of our economy 
made by our own Congressional Budget Office and, therefore, includes no 
room--and I emphasize no room, Mr. President--for overdue and deserved 
tax relief for the American people.
  Even without any tax relief for the American people, this set of 
decisions requires reductions in domestic discretionary spending that 
are extremely drastic, more than twice those that either the President 
or most of us, as Republicans on the Budget Committee, feel to be 
appropriate. In addition to leaving no room for any tax relief, this 
budget has no room for any of the new initiatives proposed by the 
President himself.
  The Senator from New Mexico has introduced this budget in this form 
to indicate precisely what the real world consequences of a failure to 
reform entitlement spending will be.
  In addition, in order to end or to mute the debate with the President 
over whether the President's far more rosy projections of our economy 
are correct as against those of the Congressional Budget Office, the 
proposal of the Senator from New Mexico says if, in fact, the economy 
operates in a better fashion than is projected by the Congressional 
Budget Office, half of those additional revenues will be devoted to tax 
relief and half to reducing the cuts in domestic discretionary 
spending. In other words, instead of the policies proposed by the 
President, which is ``spend now and then cut everything to ribbons if 
my projections don't work out,'' this proposal says, ``take the more 
conservative projections now and spend and provide tax relief in the 
future if the President's projections show themselves to be correct in 
whole or in part.''
  The chairman of the Budget Committee did not present this proposal as 
his preferred budget, nor is it mine, nor is it, I am sure, that of the 
distinguished Presiding Officer at this point. It is simply what we are 
likely to be forced to do if we cannot agree on significant reform in 
the entitlement programs which are growing both so rapidly as to crowd 
out all other spending and all tax relief, but also so rapidly as to 
threaten their own very existence.
  What the Senator from New Mexico would prefer, what this Senator 
would prefer, would be an engagement, a budget resolution reflecting a 
strong bipartisan consensus in this body and the strong enthusiastic 
support and recommendations of the President of the United States 
himself that will require us to deal with entitlements. It will require 
us to look into the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, in the Consumer 
Price Index, because it is only if we have a more equitably distributed 
budget that we can provide for tax relief and for necessary 
discretionary spending programs. Only then we can have a conversation 
with the President and between the two parties on exactly what tax 
relief should be granted to the American people and where additional 
discretionary funds may be spent.

  As I began these remarks, there was on the floor the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and there is now my friend from 
North Dakota, Senator Conrad. Each of them was a leader, one a 
Republican and one a Democrat, in a bipartisan budget proposal which 
was presented to this body almost a year ago on this floor. It 
courageously dealt with each one of these issues, dealt with them in a 
balanced fashion and dealt with them in a way that decisively would 
have brought the budget into balance by the year 2002.
  One of the curious elements of that budget, I may say, Mr. President, 
and I am sure my friend from North Dakota agrees with me, was that we 
hear today numerous favorable comments about it from those who did not 
vote for it. In fact, if we could try it again and put ourselves back 
into April of last year, it looks like it might have gotten 70 votes 
rather than 46.
  In any event, that time is past, that time is lost and because we 
lost it, the challenges we face are even more difficult today. But I 
know that my friend from New Mexico, who has now returned to the floor, 
means the introduction of these two alternatives to be a trigger toward 
an agreement with the President and with many members of the Democratic 
Party on a budget that will realistically reach balance by the year 
2002 which will give needed tax relief to the American people, tax 
relief that they deserve, that will allow us sufficient money for the 
important discretionary programs of this Government, whether they are 
the building of an infrastructure or for education or for environmental 
purposes, and that will not only reform entitlement programs so that 
these other goals can be

[[Page S2718]]

reached, but will reform them so that they are themselves secure and 
financially sound for the future, and so that what we do reflects the 
real world and not an artificial set of statistics.
  So I came to the floor this evening, Mr. President, to thank the 
Senator from New Mexico for his thoughtfulness and his tremendous 
amount of work for the two resolutions that he has submitted, and to 
simply try to emphasize that with him I hope not that either of these 
proposals passes and becomes a guideline for the U.S. Senate and for 
the Congress, but that they help us reach a goal that is not a 
Republican goal, not a Democratic goal, but a goal for all Americans.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator would.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me note the presence of Senator Conrad on 
the floor.
  Might I just say, I do not think you heard any of my remarks since I 
returned from a couple of hours at the White House yesterday. And I 
have not had a chance to speak with the distinguished Senator. But we 
are busy, as of today, working on trying to reach our differences. 
There will be a lot of work the next 2 weeks. We are very hopeful 1 
week after we return, with that week being spent by some of us getting 
down to the final stages of negotiations, that we will have something 
very constructive.
  It is hard to say where it will all end up, but I can say the 
President approached it with a degree of not only earnestness, but a 
sense that we ought to go ahead and move and we ought to resolve some 
differences and get going. And I have expressed that here today, 
indicating that as these two budgets are only there in the event we 
cannot get a budget out of the Budget Committee, then we have to get 
something to work off of, and this is a rather normal way to do it: Put 
a budget resolution in. Then the leader can call it up if we were to 
fail, and we have something to work on.
  I simply think everybody knows there are a lot of possibilities of 
working a budget together this year because there are many Republicans 
and Democrats who are looking seriously at ways to put something 
together that does do some difficult things, that is not just a 
skirting over the difficulties, and is saying, let us do some things 
that have real long-term impact and as you, I say to the Senator, have 
so eloquently said, something we can all be proud of that really does 
the job.
  That is my goal. I will try as best I can in the next few weeks. And, 
again, subject to the frailties of partisanship and things that can 
happen that you know nothing about, I said I thought there was a 
probability we could reach an agreement with the President, bipartisan, 
that many Senators would like.

                          ____________________