[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.
____________________