Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the submission introduction of S. Res. 36 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Senate Concurrent and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Arizona be permitted 1 minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will not be long.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just wanted to say where you thank me, for whatever you did, I want to add to that statement to the best of our ability we have not sacrificed the other appropriated accounts to the increases in the highway bill. We have found offsets and other things. They could suffer at some time in the future, but what we put before the Senate when we approved this with the offsets already in there, even with the new programs for veterans that are in here, $600 million, we will not take the extra money out of the NIH and other accounts of government. I told you I wanted to do that and you did not object on the floor, but this is the first time we could actually do it in the bill. We could think about it on the budget resolution, but we could do it on the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe.) The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me first say that I think everybody knows that I have the highest regard for the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. There should be no doubt in this body of my very, very high respect and honor for the Senator. Let me repeat. Everybody knows I have the highest honor and respect for Senator Byrd, also. He has known that for a long time. I have to say that Senator Gramm started off to do something and he didn't mince any words. He said what he was going to do. Joining together with Senator Byrd, he has done that. Now, frankly, I believe I can say to my good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that this is not what I would have done with reference to trying to minimize the way this fund looks. Does it look more like a real appropriations bill, or does it look somewhat like a mandatory program? I guess I would have to say, for all the accolades of trying to keep it from being an entitlement, it probably is a bit more on the mandatory side than it is on the appropriations side. But at least it does get appropriated every year. There is a firewall, much like the trust fund established for crime by the same distinguished two Senators. If you look in that appropriation bill where we set aside some of the savings that would be forthcoming from a reduction in Federal employees, as I recall, you will find it every year listed as an entrusted amount. If you don't spend it in that bill--Senator Judd Gregg's bill now --you can't spend it for anything. So it is there every year. On the other hand, there is some concern that if you put a 5- or 6- year program on track and it is not subject to appropriations review, which I submit--be it the most in-depth or not--is the only annual review we have around here. Others are done willy-nilly and some don't get reviewed for 10 years, and some do often. The truth is that you can't get away without appropriations review every year, because you have to appropriate every year. This is going to have to be appropriated every year. So that part is still there. But essentially, in the quest to see that every penny of the 4.3 is spent, there is a recognition and a very strong position by the House that the resources, the taxes that are estimated could be up or down from the obligational authority we attribute to them, because if we assume we are using them all and then the tax comes in higher, we haven't used them all. If we assume they come in lower, then we are spending taxes that didn't come in. Essentially, what the Senator from Alaska, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is concerned about is--and I think Senator Byrd and Senator Gramm, who was an appropriator for part of his life in the Senate, would be concerned--if, in fact, you were obligated to spend an amount that represented an increase, because the reality was that the tax was higher and by doing that you had to cut other appropriation committees, which would make that excess a mandatory demand on you--well, I told my friend that I didn't read the language when it was last drafted. I haven't seen it yet. In fact, for that eventuality, if it is higher than expected and you have to spend it, it holds the appropriators harmless. We don't need to talk about what that means. If you want to say what that does to the caps, you say that, I say to the Senator from Texas; but for the time being, I am saying it holds them harmless. I would not have spent the extra amount based on estimates. I think we are accurate and I would have used them like we have done in the past. Having said that, obviously, a lot of Senators are not going to be pleased with the allocations and other things. I didn't have anything to do with that. It is not my assignment. I felt somewhat uncomfortable. I don't have authorizing authority or appropriation authority. Nonetheless, it fell on me to try to make this a fair bill. When it comes to the appropriations process, I am going to put in the report right now the offsets that are in this bill. It is not bill language, but we insisted early on that we offset the increased expenditures from the appropriated accounts, so that by spending more money, we wouldn't be cutting the appropriated amounts which we have set in place by operation of law for a number of years. So we used the word ``offsets,'' and we found some. Maybe there will be a further debate on the offsets. I am prepared to debate them. I don't like to be responsible for all of the offsets. Some are found by us. I am more than willing to say I think they are fair. We have committed ourselves to increasing the expenditures for highways and mass transit and not to diminish the amount of money available for the remainder of domestic expenditures under the overall agreement that we made with reference to the budget. That is the best that we can do. That does not mean there will not be added pressure for the appropriators because of this. It does mean if you wanted more flexibility in the highway programs, you won't have that much. But I surmise that before we are finished there will be some flexibility, because there are needs. I also want everybody to know, when we have departed significantly from the obligational authority for highways and mass transit and increased it dramatically in the appropriations bill, for the most part it was when we had an emergency. All that money went to freeways that went to highways. It didn't come out of the regular trust fund, nor would it come out of these dollars that are in this bill. You would have an emergency just like you had in the past. I send that little summary to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am proud to be joined by Senators McCain, Hatch, DeWine, Chafee, Lugar, Hagel, Grassley, and Abraham in submitting a Senate Resolution entitled ``English-Plus.'' By this, we simply mean to reaffirm the importance of mastering the English language plus other languages of the world, such as Spanish, Italian, German, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and many, many more. As English becomes the world language of finance, trade, technology, diplomacy, and entertainment, the reality of international markets and international learning require a greater sensitivity to local languages. In our hemisphere, Spanish is clearly a dominant language. In my home state of New Mexico, 37 percent of the people are Spanish- Americans or Mexican-Americans. These days, the term ``Hispanic Americans'' is used to include Americans whose roots are in Spain, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central America, and South America. As U.S. News reported in the May 11, 1998, issue, ``the label Hispanic obscures the enormous diversity among people who come (or whose forebears came) from two dozen countries and whose ancestry ranges from pure Spanish to mixtures of Spanish blood with Native American, African, German, and Italian, to name a few hybrids.'' U.S. News also reported in the same issue that ``The number of Hispanics is increasing almost four times as fast as the rest of the population, and they are expected to surpass African-Americans as the largest minority group by 2005.'' In the October 21, 1996, issue, U.S. News reported that ``Nearly 28 million people--1 American in 10-- consider themselves of Hispanic origin.'' This 1996 estimate was based on 1994 Census data. Current estimates are that there are 29 million Hispanics in America, or 1 in 9 Americans. By 2050 projections are that 1 in every 4 Americans will be Hispanic. As our world economy barges into the next century, it has become clear the ``domestic-only market planning'' has been replaced by the era of international trade agreements and the creation of regional trading blocs. In 1996, the total volume of trade with Mexico was estimated at $130 billion. Our trade with the rest of Latin America that same year was $101 billion. Spanish is clearly a growing cultural and economic force in our hemisphere. It is also the common language of hundreds of millions of people. New Mexico is the only state that requires the use of both English and Spanish on every election ballot. As the son of an Italian immigrant, I can personally testify to the importance of English Plus. My father did not read or write in English, yet he insisted that I learn English and do my best at some Italian. My parents both spoke Spanish--a skill which they found very useful in establishing a wholesale grocery business in Albuquerque. Tens of thousands of New Mexico families still speak Spanish at home. Spanish remains a strong tie to their culture, music, history, and folklore. After decades of being taught to learn English first, most New Mexico Hispanic families also know English very well. It is ironic that recent economic trends of this decade show Latin America as the most promising future market for American goods and services. An article in The Economist of April 21, 1998, stresses the value of the Spanish language to America's fastest growing minority group. ``America's Latinos are rapidly becoming one of its most useful resources.'' The Economist, however, also goes on to note that, ``The Spanish language, which is their glory, also consigns too many of them to jobs not far removed from indentured slavery.'' ``Although they often meet discrimination, they have little taste for the politics of quotas or compensation. And although they have always supported `affirmative action' programmes, they now loathe bilingual education, the programme most specifically devised to give them a leg- up into American life.'' ``Even poor Latinos retain a sturdy distrust of government preferring to rely on their families. Relatively few Latinos are on welfare; most believe that a man ought to help himself first by his own efforts.'' It is no longer accurate to say that we are perched to enter a global economy--rather, we are well into it. With Latin America as the next great market partner of the United States, those Americans who know both English and Spanish will have many new grand opportunities. Mexico's recent hiring and celebration of its one-millionth maquiladora worker in international manufacturing plants mostly along our border, the value of knowing two languages to function with the hundreds of Fortune 500 companies now manufacturing in Mexico is unquestioned. Mr. President, I have long believed that New Mexico and other border states are uniquely poised to create the focal point of North American trade with South America. I agree with The Economist observation that ``America's Latinos are rapidly becoming one of its most useful resources.'' I predict that English Plus Spanish will be one of the major marketable skills for the next century. In conclusion, I would like my colleagues to see the shallowness of thought behind the idea that ``English Only'' should be the wave of the future. If we want to miss our best potential markets in Mexico, Central America, and South America, then ``English Only'' should be our intent. If we want to become a more powerful cultural and economic American force in the world--including both North and South America into the meaning of ``America''--then we should adopt ``English Plus'' as approach. As stated in our resolution, ``English Plus'' includes many if not all of the languages of the world. No one disputes the importance of English as the leading language of science, technology, the internet, finance, and diplomacy. By acknowledging our heightened abilities through the addition of other languages to our national strengths, the United States will benefit greatly by expanding its cultural life and economic potential through the application of the notion of ``English Plus'' other languages of the world.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act before us today. At the same time, I am uncomfortable about the implementing legislation for the Chemical Weapons Convention attached to it. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses the gravest risk to domestic and international security in the post-Cold War era. Based on this assessment of U.S. security concerns, it makes sense for the Senate to pass legislation designed to prevent or, at a minimum, curb proliferation threats in every possible instance. The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act will help to attain our non-proliferation objectives. A very important national security objective is to prevent Iran from obtaining and improving its weapons of mass destruction. A critical concern is Iranian acquisition of ballistic missiles, especially those with a range of 1,300 kilometers or more. Such capability would pose an unacceptable threat to U.S. forces in that area, not to mention our allies throughout the region. This Sanctions legislation is a careful and sound approach to non- proliferation. The legislation should offer the Administration additional leverage in curtailing Russian assistance to Iran's missile programs, and I applaud those objectives. Ideally, the implementing legislation for the Chemical Weapons Convention would have similar objectives--stemming the threat of proliferation. The goal of the Chemical Weapons Convention is to create a sufficient web of deterrence and detection capabilities so as to minimize the potential threat that chemical weapons pose to U.S. and global security. In order to attain this objective, the CWC relies on the most stringent verification regime ever before codified in an international arms control instrument. The verification measures set forth in the CWC were carefully crafted over many years to ensure that the attained transparency in no way impedes private industry's ability to protect proprietary information. In addition, measures for ``challenge inspections''--a verification measure initially proposed by the Reagan Administration in negotiations over a decade ago--allow for inspection at any time and in any place. Otherwise, the CWC is rendered incapable of ferreting out undeclared activities. I remind you that this was a weakness of the nuclear nonproliferation regime that Iraq successfully exploited to hide a covert weapons program. The proposed CWC implementation legislation, attached to H.R. 2709 ``Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997,'' seriously weaken the Chemical Weapons Convention in such a manner as to pave the way for rogue nations to capitalize on U.S. short-sightedness. There are several aspects of the proposed legislation that are problematic. First, however, the following is clear: if the U.S. Senate ratified an international ban on poisonous gases, it makes no sense for the Administration to have negotiated legislation that renders the Convention impotent. Secondly, the U.S. Senate cannot ratify a treaty and then renege on its own commitment to provide effective and reasonable measures for implementation. Mr. President, this legislation includes three provisions that are of concern: (1) First, there is a measure that allows for the President to refuse a challenge inspection on the grounds that it ``may pose a threat'' to U.S. security interests. Presumably, Hussein did not want UNSCOM in his Presidential palaces for similar reasons. Other countries would no doubt follow suit. The White House is claiming that this is ``harmless,'' because they do not intend to invoke it. If there is no intention to use it, then including this provision merely opens the door for other nations to follow our lead and diminishes our capacity to catch cheaters. The CWC provisions on challenge inspections preclude abuse of the challenge inspection option. The treaty incorporates stringent measures to ensure that confidential or classified information remains secure. Moreover, the CWC provides penalties for any state that might opt to invoke a frivolous challenge inspection. (2) Another dangerous aspect of the legislation is found in the provisions on routine inspections and sampling. Again, the verification measures and procedures of the CWC were painstakingly crafted to ensure privacy and confidentiality. Also, the ability to detect cheating at both declared and undeclared facilities is critical to the viability of the regime. The proposed implementing legislation before the Senate allows for only one inspection per year at industrial plants. The treaty allows for two. This is a critical point. Given the number of facilities worldwide that will require inspection by a relatively small, highly qualified cadre of inspectors, most facilities will only be inspected once a year. However, the treaty allows for two routine inspections in case something suspicious or inexplicable is unearthed in the results from the first inspection. The persons drafting this legislation may have assumed that they would be sparing U.S. chemical facilities from the tedious drill of coping with more inspections than necessary. However, this view is short-sighted and will hinder the inspectorate's ability to identify cheaters. Again, other countries will follow the U.S. lead. Should inspectors come across suspicious evidence in another country and desire more information to clarify the activities at a foreign facility, the only option at that point would be to wait a year OR invoke a challenge inspection. A lot of deadly chemicals can be produced in a year. In addition, challenge inspections were thought to be necessary to unearth undeclared clandestine activities. In all likelihood, invoking a challenge inspection will be fraught with tension. Do we want to escalate every unclear circumstance at any facility in any country to the level of a challenge inspection, when the original provisions of the CWC provide the means necessary to avoid this? (3) One last provision within this legislation requires adjustment. I remind you, once again, CWC was carefully crafted to provide measures for stringent and comprehensive verification. The redefinition found in the implementing legislation would undoubtedly narrow the number of U.S. facilities required to make declarations. Please bear in mind, the U.S. cannot hold other countries to standards that we ourselves are not willing to meet. Most commercial products have a mixture of chemicals in them. For example, a ballpoint pen contains a chemical that could be extracted and used to make poison mustard gas. Under CWC provisions, chemical manufacturers are required to include in their initial and annual declarations the production of mixtures with a low concentration in so-called Schedule 3 chemicals. U.S. chemical industry representatives and U.S. government officials agreed that 30% or less of a Schedule 3 chemical in a mixture constitutes a low concentration. The U.S. implementing legislation changes that figure to 80%. In other words, substantially fewer U.S. facilities will be subject to completing annual declarations or inspections. The same will hold true for other countries that follow our example of assuming that 80% is a low concentration. We thereby increase the likelihood that proliferators will use industrial facilities to mask chemical weapons activities, averting detection. The Chemical Manufacturers Association was extensively involved in designing the CWC verification measures. Chemical Manufacturers in this country were a strong and vocal group in support of this treaty. They consistently urged that stringent and comprehensive verification provisions be included in the treaty. The U.S. chemical industry did not ask for these provisions to protect their interests so who, then, do these provisions protect? The answer is simple: The provisions in the U.S. implementing legislation protect those who want to cheat on this treaty. These restrictions on routine and challenge inspections will inevitably backfire on U.S. security interests. Keeping in mind that the U.S. is setting an example with its implementation of the treaty's provisions, these restrictions provide a great deal more latitude within which a rogue nation can maneuver to hide a chemical weapons program. Intelligence sources repeatedly identify over two dozen states that either already have or are attempting to attain chemical weapons capability. In its first year, the CWC has begun to reverse that trend. In view of our most recent experience in Iraq, there is little reason to assume that lax verification measures for detecting or deterring weapons of mass destruction designs or capabilities will serve U.S. interests. At this time, the U.S. itself is already in violation of the CWC, because it has failed to pass implementing legislation and commence with declarations and inspections. The U.S. Administration has come under intense pressure from Japan, China, Australia and the European Union to proceed. The U.S. chemical industry is confronting pressures from their trading partners overseas, because it has not yet been subject to inspection. States that are complying fully with the CWC's reporting and inspection requirements are threatening to stop inspections on their territory if the United States, which has the world's largest chemical industry, does not soon allow inspections of that industry to proceed. Due to these pressures, the U.S. chemical industry and the Administration want action now. However, we cannot allow these pressures to distract us from the fundamental problems with this implementing legislation. Short-sightedness on issues of U.S. and international security can be very dangerous over the long haul. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them are the most serious threat to U.S. security today. The aims of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act are laudable and I fully support them. I supported the Chemical Weapons Convention last year, and I would wholeheartedly support passage of reasonable and effective implementing legislation for that treaty. Due to the pressures that our chemical industry is confronting and our current violation of the Convention, I will also support this legislation. However, I will not do so without pointing to the hypocrisy of sanctioning entities who proliferate missile technology to Iran, and, at the same time, passing implementing legislation that opens the door for chemical weapons proliferators. It is essential that we impede the flow of missile technologies to Iran. It is also critical that we pass implementing legislation and join the international community in eliminating chemical weapons and detecting defectors. However, it is critical that we do it right. This CWC legislation is all wrong. I would like to work with my colleagues to improve this implementation regime in the near future. Otherwise, our overzealous desire to shield ourselves will ultimately be used by those we would like to protect ourselves against.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, every year, New Mexico recognizes some of their own citizens who have contributed to their communities in extraordinary ways. Today, along with the citizens of New Mexico, I am grateful for this opportunity to recognize Dr. Pete Lyons for his civic service. As a Legislative Fellow in my office he serves as my science advisor and during his time with me, I have benefitted from his good advice and diligent work. Service to one's community can be expressed in many different forms. However, it is rare to find someone as dedicated to so many diverse activities as Pete Lyons. He is a 29-year employee of Los Alamos National Laboratory while serving for 16 years on the Los Alamos School Board. Whether it is his scientific work, his initiative to help rural communities, his dedication to education and young people, or his work to improve policy in the international area, Pete shows the same integrity, insight and old-fashioned hard work. Pete moved to New Mexico 29 years ago to work for the Laboratory as a technical staff member. He went on to serve in a number of management positions. In his career at the Lab he was the first Director of the Industrial Partnership Office where he expanded and created programs to encourage economic diversity in Northern New Mexico. He continued efforts to improve cooperation with the surrounding community through the Lab's office of Regional Economic Development and Technology Commercialization Office. Through a wide range of critical projects involving issues from telecommunications infrastructure, to telemedicine capability to improve rural health care, to technical assistance for water quality his work has been hallmarked by a dedication to the entire community both related and unrelated to the Laboratory. Since the Lab's beginning during World War II, it has been a stark contrast to the economy and cultures of the surrounding region. Through this work, Pete has helped to bridge that gap to begin a new era of cooperation and interaction for the Laboratory and the nearby communities. In addition, I believe his service that is the most commendable is his active involvement in education. Pete recognizes that our children's future, our nation's future, is dependent upon the quality of our education system. During his sixteen years on the Los Alamos School board, he was instrumental in helping to create University of New Mexico-Los Alamos Branch College. He represented the Laboratory during negotiations with the local school district to form a foundation to provide financial support from the Lab and the Department of Energy to provide financial support for school districts where lab employees lived. During his time in my office, he has worked to bring attention to our nation's need to improve science and technology education so that America will remain competitive well into the next century. Pete also knows that personal involvement can mean so much to young people. He has spent several years coaching soccer, sponsoring Boy Scouts, and serving as deacon in his church. In a sense, Pete continues his civic service as a congressional fellow in my office. Over the months, he has proven to me his immense value to New Mexico and the nation. Whether the issue be rural economic development or nuclear non-proliferation, Pete brings thoughtful knowledge and keen insight to the table. He is willing to tackle controversial issues with a open mind and commitment to truthful dialogue. I hope my colleagues will join me and my fellow New Mexicans to recognize this remarkable American.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have not but for a few minutes spoken about the issue before the Senate. I want to make it very clear that I understand the difficulty in managing a bill of this size. It is an enormous and contentious issue, and Senator McCain should be commended for taking on such a difficult task. I have nothing but admiration for those who are attempting to develop this legislation. But I can say to the Senate that I cannot imagine that the rules of this Senate are going to preclude Senators like Gramm and Domenici from offering amendments to this bill. We want to vote on whether we want to have a tax cut as part of this new tax increase. Sooner or later we will vote. I don't know what the two amendments offered by Senator Daschle are. Whatever they are, in due course we will vote on them. If by chance one of them wipes out ours, we will be back to offer other amendments. Let me talk about the history of imposing taxes on cigarette and related tobacco products. I am sure that I am not as good of a historian as my friend from Texas is, but is he aware the first reported effort to put a tax on tobacco was done by King James I in 1604. King James just didn't like the odor of tobacco. He wasn't a U.S. Senator and he wasn't part of a democracy. He simply issued a proclamation. ``Smoking is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.'' In 1604, King James said that. Now I used to be a smoker and I enjoyed it. I am just reporting on what King James said so I don't want the smokers listening to this debate to get mad at me. Then he proceeded to put a 4,000 percent increase on imported tobacco. He didn't pretend that he wanted to accomplish some worthy public purpose. He just wanted to raise revenue--and a lot of it. He was a dictator, king, benevolent, whatever they call them. But he didn't have to worry about what we have to worry about. And that is the impact on our citizens of this huge tax and the size of government. Frankly, there is not a word in history about this which said he was concerned about kids. He just said what I had described to you, and put the tax on and spent the money. Frankly, people were no better off in those days. Even with a 4,000- percent increase people continued to smoke. It is most interesting that without all of our science--I really think our science is great to find cures for cancer--King James I said that smoking was harmful to the brain and dangerous to the lungs. Having said that, he wasn't concerned about teenagers or about cancer because he didn't know about cancer. But as we proceed to work on this bill, I want to ask myself and ask those who are working on this bill: What do we really want to accomplish? First, we contend that too many young people are starting to smoke. And we want to stop that. Make no bones about it. When we offer our substitute bill, we have done the best we can with a reasonable amount of money to try to stop teenagers from smoking. Too many young people are using drugs, and we want to try to stop that. And we want more research on serious illnesses, including cancer, so that someday we will stop them in their tracks. Now, that is the kind of substitute amendment we are going to offer. But nowhere can anybody tell the Senate or the people of the United States that you need over the next 25 years $868 billion in new revenue from cigarette-related products. Where do I get that number? I don't think it has been said this way, but I want to make it simple. The current Federal excise tax on tobacco is 24 cents a pack. It is scheduled to go to 39 cents a pack under current law. This bill includes an increase equal to $1.10 cents. That is 1.49 in straight arithmetic. And then the $1.10 is indexed for inflation or 3 percent, whichever is greater. Frankly, we are not really sure how much this bill raises, but an acceptable number is $868 billion, I say to my friend from Texas. Now, I want to try to put that in perspective. The biggest program we have taking care of the most people committed to monthly checks is the Social Security Program. $868 billion would pay for Social Security for 2 full years. $868 billion would pay for the entire Defense Department of America for 3 years. This proposed tax increase in the McCain bill is bigger--when you put it into one basket, it is bigger than the gross domestic product of any of the following countries: Belgium, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, et cetera. Now, where did anybody come up with the idea that we needed every single penny of that to be spent on programs related to reimbursement to the States, to research, or to whatever? Where did the miraculous relationship of $868 billion, the total receipts, to the need for programs come from? There is no reason to it. There is no magic. I can assure you of that, if you only had a $300 billion tax increase, everyone would get by with $300 billion for this anti-smoking program. But now we have gotten so grandiose about it that it is going to raise, over 25 years, over $868 billion under this bill. Now, frankly, I believe it is only reasonable that part of this tax increase be given back to the American people, and I am going to have a lot more to say about that. But a tax is a tax. This tax has a good motive: to stop kids from smoking. It may work--raise the price of cigarettes, and certain parts of the population may not buy them as much or may stop buying them. There is not conclusive evidence as to what price point you have to raise the price to, to have the most effect. But I can tell you, in our substitute we are going to propose 75 cents, period--no increases, just 75 cents. We believe that will keep the black market from going rampant and has as good a chance as any other number, by way of a tax, of deterring young people from starting smoking or encouraging them to quit smoking from the economic standpoint. Having said that, I want to tell you that there is nothing more onerous in the United States than the marriage penalty. Every once in a while, you will hear about a couple--it is not very frequent, but it gives you the dimension of this penalty--who will go to Mexico and get divorced the day before Christmas, and then they will go to Las Vegas and get married after New Year's. And guess what. They don't have to pay the marriage tax penalty. I am not sure if 500 do that, but we know some used to. I am not sure if it is 5,000. But imagine that you have a law on the books of America that invites that kind of conduct. In the extreme, the marriage penalty is punitive. And it is just wonderful to hear Senators and political leaders say, ``We are for the family.'' I assume that when you say, ``We are for the family,'' without regard to one's philosophy, I guess you would have to say marriage is pretty important, too, because I think in some way it is related to the families. It used to be 100 percent related, but it is still very important. Now, why would you impose a tax that would say to those two people who are married, ``You pay more if you are both working than if you are both working and living together and not married''? Frankly, I will tell you that I have heard, personally, in my own ear somebody say, ``We are not getting married because, after all, we love each other, but we would have to pay $2,800 more in taxes, and it is just crazy, so we are not going to get married.'' Now, I don't like to say that, but that is the case. And there are worse examples because they are much broader in terms of impact. The average marriage penalty in this country is $1,400. In some cases, it is much higher; in other cases, it is somewhat lower. In fact, if you look at comparable countries, Mr. President, 27 of the OECD countries--they are tied together in terms of economic evaluations and assumptions and the like--19 countries tax husbands and wives separately, so there is no marriage penalty. What keeps the United States from doing that? Frankly, what has kept us in the past is that we had too big a deficit, and if we cut taxes, then we figured we were losing money and we would take it easy and careful and not fix everything in the Tax Code. We have balanced the budget. Senator Gramm and I do not intend to change a bit that approach to more and more surpluses. But when you impose a brand new tax--and it is inconceivable that you would need every penny of that tax for a program that deals with tobacco--frankly, there are organizations running around that have never seen so much money. I have stopped some in the hall with buttons saying, ``Cigarette Tax Now,'' and have asked them, ``Which one?'' Well, they said, ``We like Senator McCain's improved.'' I said, ``Oh, but what's the goal?'' ``Well, the goal is the highest tax we can get and the biggest program we can get to spend money on teenagers and all kinds of health programs.'' Growing a big government is not why we are raising the cigarette tax. I thought our big goal was to try to stop our young people from smoking. Increasing the price of cigarettes plus a pro-active advertising campaign against smoking and drugs could be effective. We also need an attitude change at the cigarette companies. We also need a little more research. We need new penalties against those who sell to teenagers when they should not, and even to teenagers who smoke three or four times and they should not and know they are wrong. That is provided for in the Gramm Domenici substitute. We would like to increase the budget DEA, FBI, Customs, and DOD drug interdiction programs. But beyond that, what do we need all this money for? It is absolutely logical--I have been here a long time. I have worked on appropriations. Every year the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee comes to the floor. I will say, ``You can't imagine, fellow Senators, how many requests I had for money from my bill that I could not comply with.'' In fact, I have seen some where you take out a batch of letters and say, ``This is what I was asked to do that I can't do.'' But there is no relationship between the country prospering and being a great country and that pack of letters. But now, look, here we have concluded--some have--that we would be remiss if we didn't dream up an expenditure for every penny of these tax dollars. Right? Now, why is that rational? Why should those of us say, how about one-third of it going back to the taxpayers and going back to fix the most onerous, discriminatory tax against an institution that we cherish and respect, one-third of the money. I have not heard anybody say--and I hope, when we finally vote on the marriage penalty, and that is not going to be the only tax cut amendment offered, because if this one does not pass, there will be an amendment to cut 1 percent from the lower brackets. There will be a tax cut amendment to expand child care credits. There will be a number of tax cut amendments that should be considered. But how can anybody stand up in the Senate and say, if you take a third of this huge tax increase the tobacco program for kids is not going to work? I defy anybody to come up here and say, out of this pot of money and all these programs, if you don't keep them all, if you take one-third of the money and say, look, let's give it back to the taxpayers so we begin to get rid of this marriage penalty, at least for those families with $50,000 of income and under, I cannot imagine somebody will stand up and say: ``But we won't be doing what we must do for our kids.'' I mean, if it is $868 billion, and you have $650 billion instead of $868 billion, can you not put an effective anti-smoking and anti-drug program together?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is exactly right. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I understand that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I still have the floor, Mr. President. I yield for a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. We don't change the marriage bonus.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am not aware. Maybe Senator Gramm can help me. I am not aware we changed the marriage bonus if there is one on this.

Mr. DOMENICI. So, from my standpoint, as I told some of my friends to whom I said I was not in a hurry to pass this legislation, I said, why don't we continue to work on this bill until we get back. I said that because it is very contentious and Senators ought to have a chance to vent their positions and let the American people try to understand. I have not been able to come to the floor because I been trying to help finish the ISTEA bill. I have noticed that the Senate floor time has been filled with Senators talking about this bill. There have been no long quorum calls. I do not think there has been anything dilatory. But, frankly, I have a number of amendments that I believe should be offered. This is our best opportunity to consider tax cuts. I intend to talk about this bill. I have dedicated 20 years of my career in the Senate getting our Government's size under control. I have had Senators congratulate me, saying we are finally getting Government down a reasonable in size; it is not going to be so big. And then all of a sudden I see this bill that will supersize Government--and I will gather more information for you so I can do more comparisons--but this bill will add probably as much in new programs to this Government as we have been able to cut from this Government in our deficit reduction programs of the last 4 or 5 years combined. Government is government. Taxes are taxes. And, in our system, there is a relationship between the two. The higher the taxes, the bigger the government. And the higher the taxes, the less free are people. I will commit that we ought to tax cigarettes to discourage kids from buying and smoking cigarettes. Senator Gramm and I will propose taxing cigarettes at 75 cents a pack in our substitute. But I do not believe there is any magic formula as to how much you have to spend to try to dissuade kids from smoking. If $600 billion is not enough, and we need $886 billion over 25 years, then you cannot give anything back to the taxpayers. But what if $500 billion is enough? Or $400 billion is enough? Then I believe that some of the money should be given back to the people? That is essentially the issue. It is as big an issue as any issue before us, because we do not need all the money called for in the McCain bill I have just told you about--a dollar and a dime plus 49 cents plus 3 percent added on every year. We do not need all that money for a cigarette program so we ought to not use it all. Senator Gramm and I are going to offer the Senate an opportunity to give some of the money back to people in the form of a tax cut. I will be glad to yield for a question. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am just about finished and then I will be glad to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have a question. Is the Senator saying that tobacco companies do everything they are supposed to do and yet when we take the survey, we are not as successful as we hoped to be and so we are going to impose a fee on them?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Gregg, doesn't it seem like this is a very important bill? I gather that it is probably, in one fell swoop, adding more money to government than anything we have ever done in any single bill in modern history. Don't you think we have rules and we ought to take our time and do this in a normal manner that befits the Senate for one of the most important spending bills that we have had in decades?