[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 20 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1333-S1334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, shortly, the Congressional Budget 
Office--that is the official professional staff that has been in 
existence for many years that helps the Congress with budgeting--is 
going to issue--it is already prepared, it is ready for a formal 
issuance--an analysis of the President's budgetary proposals for the 
year 1999.
  Before I tell the Senate what they are going to conclude, let me 
hearken back to when the President issued his budget. There were many 
Senators who asked me, ``How can the President have so many new 
domestic programs when we have an agreed-upon limit for the year 1999 
and the year 2000 and the year 2001, all the way to the year 2003, that 
doesn't permit any growth in the Federal domestic program?'' As a 
matter of fact, to be accurate, it permits .5 percent growth, which the 
Congressional Budget Office has said, doing the arithmetic, it is even 
high; you cannot grow that much.

  So I was being asked: Where can the President find money for his 
education initiative--whether you are for it or against it--for his 
child care proposal--whether you are for it or against it --and a long 
shopping list of programs? And I believe I said then, and said on the 
floor of the Senate, I do not believe he can. I believe he has tried to 
find a way to spend more than the agreement says we can spend, but says 
he isn't by transferring revenues and receipts to the Appropriations 
Committee so they can spend the money and take credit for the revenues 
and receipts and other matters like that.
  Well, as a matter of fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that 
the President is $68 billion in excess of the agreed-upon amounts we 
can spend for each of these 5 years--$68 billion over the budget 
agreement caps on the domestic discretionary programs, on the domestic 
program part of the appropriations process.
  Now, that is very important, because to the extent that that is 
correct, then obviously, unless Senators want to go back and restrain 
and cut and eliminate domestic programs, they are clearly not going to 
be able to fund very much of the President's new domestic initiative 
list that was forthcoming and stated in his State of the Union address.
  Now, frankly, I did not believe, as one who has worked on this for 
some time, that the President could exchange matters in that way, and 
what I said has now been vindicated by the professionals who do the 
work for the Congress. If you could do it that way, then obviously 
these agreed-upon caps would be meaningless, for all you would have to 
do is find revenues and receipts, and the Government could grow and 
grow in terms of the amount that we spend and still say that we are 
within the agreed-upon caps because you offset the receipts against the 
expenditures.
  Apparently, the Congressional Budget Office said that is not possible 
and then found that some of the expenditures are going to spend out 
more than the President says. Now, that is interesting, because if you 
wonder where we are on surpluses, you know the President said we had a 
$220 billion surplus over 5 years. The Congressional Budget Office, in 
its report, says the surplus for the 5 years, Mr. President, will be 
less than half of that, it will be $108 billion--slightly less than 
one-half of what he predicted.
  In addition to that fact, which should sober us up a bit, this 
professional evaluation done for us by an independent entity--not the 
economists who work for the President, and not the President's Office 
of Management and Budget, but an independent group--they also say that 
the budget, the way the President is spending it, goes out of kilter 
and that in the year 2000 we are in deficit again. In other words, we 
come out, have a little surplus--a little surplus--and then in 2000 we 
are in deficit again. We come out of it shortly afterwards. But it does 
put us in a very awkward position, as we speak of the accumulation of 
surpluses over time, to find that the numbers we are going to be forced 
to use are going to say there is no surplus in the year 2000.
  Now, I wish that the President was right in his $220 billion surplus 
over 5 years. I wondered about it, especially with all the new 
spending. But I was today to some extent--some sober language enters 
our discussions now, a little sobering-up with reference to where we 
are. And, I will insert in the Record the Congressional Budget Office's 
analysis in toto for everyone to read.
  One last comment. The Congressional Budget Office has modified the 
annual surpluses also substantially so that there are no significant 
surpluses in the early years--maybe 4, 5, 6, 7 billion dollars, but 
nothing significant.

[[Page S1334]]

  Now, that means that our job around here is a lot more difficult, 
because whenever anybody thinks it does not matter whether we 
overspend, we are going to be confronted with the sobering fact that we 
had better not be looking to the President's budget for guidance or 
advice because it will just make matters worse.

                          ____________________