Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that may be the case. If it is the case, I yield to the facts. Still, the situation is that at an appointed time shortly after that event, or surrounding that event, when it was declared to be violative of the Budget Act, it is quite clear the majority leader does not want to negotiate here with Republicans and in the House with Republicans and Democrats, again. So he prefers to go right to conference. He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about what happened to the Democratic bill because he doesn't want to work anything out in the Senate because he says that means he will have to negotiate twice. I believe we don't have to negotiate twice. We ought to look at these three points. I can see in both bodies a very large majority for these three points. That is ample for Members to go home at Christmas and say, we have a good stimulus. It can be bipartisan because there are at least 12 Senators, a mix of both sides, who support the holiday. The only reason there are not more is that they are waiting for their own provision that they supported to go away because they don't want to be for two things. But if the leadership would say we should do a simple package, one that is profoundly stimulative, we can forget about all this arguing and forget about which week what happened. But I will go back and say, if we said that the Democrat bill was subject to a point of order, that is the way everything has been going here, everything is subject to a point of order. The truth is, it started off very nonpartisan because the Finance Committee decided they would put together a bill to garner enough Democratic votes to report it out of committee. I am not arguing that we have the right to do that. I have done that on budget before. But you cannot then say it is the Republicans who don't want a tax bill when you started this process, when you started this process by saying, we want one but only if it is our way. It is time we all forget about that. My speech is not intended to bring it all up again, just to clarify the record, and then to say forget about it and let us do something. This week we could get a stimulus done that would be about like the one I sent to the desk, we could get the rest of our work done, and we could go home. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I can handle anybody's question, but I want to finish my thoughts and then I will yield to the Senator. With reference to the farm bill, I do not come to this Chamber too often on a farm bill, but I will be on this one because, first of all, it is an abomination for milk production in America and for our children who drink a lot of milk and for those in America who are encouraged to drink a lot of milk. This is a bill calculated to increase the price of milk dramatically so as to spread around a new tax so all of those producing milk can get a fair share of the new tax; not so we will produce competition and there will be a big incentive to produce good, solid, healthy milk at lower prices but, rather, to make sure those areas of the country that are not producing milk in a competitive manner will get made whole at the expense of the very competitive States such as mine and Idaho and others, that are producing substantially new ways to be competitive, safe, sound, and produce rather cheap milk for the American children and American people. We will have plenty to say about that. The bill they are talking about in agriculture, obviously, will never become law. It has some good arguing points for five or six States that would like to convince others. Having said that, I get back to stimulus. The news is not great with reference to the economy. It is very hard to figure out what is going on in the economy because the numbers, the statistics, the assessments are mixed. Clearly, they are not so mixed that we should call off the stimulus package. We have to do one. We ought to decide now that we don't have a lot of time and we ought to do a very simple bill. I say to Senator Reid, what I will do today is introduce a very simple economic stimulus package. The Senator might recall, in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago I shared a proposal with you with reference to an economic stimulus, that we have a 1-month holiday from the Social Security tax for both the employer and the employee. I think we ought to have that as a cornerstone. Both sets of leaders in both Houses ought to agree that is the best stimulus around of any we have seen, and then just do two other things--and all the rest we will wait and do next year--do two other things and call it a stimulus package. Indeed, it would be. First, the tax holiday will put $8 billion into the economy and 160 million working men and women in America get to keep the withholding. Their employers will do the same. They will not have to remit theirs. That ought to be the cornerstone. Do it for January, February. But do it. It will stimulate the economy and give it a good kick upwards. A lot of Democrats support that. It is when you put the rest of the package together we get to arguing. I submit it is so important we get rid of the other things that cause Members to argue and do those another day, another time, another way. They are not stimulus anyway. We ought to do two things. Beyond the holiday, we ought to expand the safety net for working Americans; that is, expand it and extend unemployment payments. Some Democratic Senators and some Republicans have said we ought to do that. We ought to agree to that. An additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits, if passed, and expand that to part- time workers--they ought to be in this alternative--that costs $9 billion. Last, we ought to go ahead and do the enhanced extending of cap expenditures but reduce it to 20 percent instead of 30 percent, so we would have 20 percent appreciation in 3 years. An extension of expansion of the unemployment compensation and the stimulus package, the stimulus core, and the payroll tax holiday. I wish we could do that. I wish we could decide. There is not enough time to argue. Let's do something truly stimulative to get America going again and let that do two other things the Americans need: One for the unemployment needs and one for business needs with reference to appreciation. I put my statement in explaining the situation of the economy, explaining the three provisions, and sending a bill along with it, in case anybody wants to see what it should look like. I send a bill with it, and that includes only the three provisions: The holiday; the 20 percent depreciation instead of 30 percent for 3 years for the capital account, which is very much needed by small and large businesses; and last, a drastic and much needed expansion of the unemployment code of this country. The three provisions make up about a $79 billion package. If we can pass that this week--everybody knows what they are--that will be truly something very positive. I am happy to answer questions. If I made an error, I am happy to correct that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to finish. I do not have much time.

Mr. DOMENICI. On a point?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, especially to my good friend, Harry Reid, I will not take time this afternoon to attempt in some feeble way to rebut the statement with reference to the partisanship of the last month or so with reference to various items, including the stimulus package. Suffice it to say, the granddaddy of all partisanship occurred on the stimulus package that was reported out of the Finance Committee of the Senate because on that particular one, the conferees were instructed by the Democratic majority--and I remind everyone that majority is by one vote--they told that committee to report out a Democratic package every single Democrat Senator would support. That meant there were no Republicans because they had something to offer, too. But rather they took a Democratic package, produced it, and then the big partisan debate started with reference to an attempt to get a stimulus package. Where is that Democratic stimulus package? I do not have it. I wish I did. I would love to read it to the American people so they could conclude whether it is going to make jobs for people, whether that is going to excite this economy. It is still pending at the desk. It is still pending because those who produced it do not want to let the Senate vote on it because they are afraid there will be two negotiations: One when we argue in this Chamber and one when they go to conference. Whatever their reasons, the hangup is there is a bill at the desk that was produced by a partisan majority that contains only things they want and nothing the Republicans wanted. I submit we can throw those kinds of characteristics away and ask some experts whether that bill will create new jobs. Among the various proposals, it is the least productive of new jobs of all the proposals around. So with another effort on the part of the Democratic leadership, we are led by my very good friend, Harry Reid, to bring this back and in some way blame the Republicans, who do not even control the Senate, for this big delay. Then what happened to the House? The House produced their own economic stimulus. Every time our friends on the other side talk about the Republicans, everybody should know that was the House Republicans who produced the bill they are speaking of, not those of us who are trying to put a package together in the Senate. The House did their own thing. They got a majority vote, and that is the way they did it. That is not going to end up being the law. We have to get together and resolve the issue in favor of the American people, instead of in favor of who wins this bickering and this arguing. So that is where we are. Instead of there being a vote in the Senate on the stimulus package, a deal was cooked up for which we would never vote in the Senate: just go to conference with the House and have an argument with them and decide between the Democratic proposal that was adopted without any input from the Senate Republicans, whether that or a House-passed bill is going to be the law of the land, or which part will come out of it in terms of compromise. Why did the House chairman call off the meetings? I never justify the House's activities, but the House chairman's reason was very simple: the majority leader had said publicly there would not be a stimulus package unless two-thirds of the Democratic Senators supported the provisions of that stimulus package. The chairman of the House read that and said, since that is their desire--and I do not go to committee meetings negotiating with an unknown two-thirds Members who are not even present--why do we not go home, take a 5-day recess, and think it over. That is where we are. Let anybody who would like lay blame for that 5-day delay, but it is not all singularly the problem of the chairman of the House committee when, if it is true, the leader of the other side has indicated there is no use going to conference and negotiating because there is an ominous presence that has to be looked to to make sure two-thirds of the Democratic Senators support it. That is pretty different than most conferences. I do not blame him too much for wondering what kind of conference they were going to have. It has since been denied that it was said or that it meant that. What we ought to do is actually forget about all of that. Before I move to the stimulus package, I must take a couple of minutes to speak with reference to the farm bill. Tomorrow, we will have plenty of time, I hope, to talk about the farm bill in more depth.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the economy remains weak and the unemployment rate released last Friday for the month of November topped 5.7 percent. This is the highest level in over 6 years, and many economists expect it to exceed 6 percent in the coming months. Recently the economy officially was put in the category of ``recession'' beginning last March by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The economy measured by its gross national product, declined at a 1.1 percent rate in the third quarter of this year. Corporate profits are down nearly 22 percent compared to last year, and consumer confidence is down 51 points in three months, the steepest drop since 1980. While there are a couple of ``not so bad'' economic factors out there, low consumer prices, low interest rates, low oil prices for consumers, and record high auto sales, these all could be temporary phenomena related to a broader weak economy and low consumer demand. For all these reasons, I believe Congress needs to act on a stimulus bill before it adjourns this first session of the 107th congress. The American public deserves action on a stimulus bill and we need to act quickly. Too much time has passed and we cannot let politics as usual keep us from putting together a bill that can achieve wide bipartisan support quickly. I have come to the conclusion that we should adopt a bill that is not controversial, politically speaking, and that can actually do some good for the American economy in a short time period. I therefore am introducing today a bill that does three very simple things that I think we can all agree on: First, a one-month payroll tax holiday, that will provide relief from the regressive payroll tax. It would eliminate the need for both employers and employees to pay the current 12.4 percent tax. I have found wide bipartisan support for this proposal. Unfortunately it is probably too late now to implement it successfully in the month of December but I still believe it can be enacted in time to provide real relief in the first month of 2002. This proposal will provide nearly $40 billion in immediate, temporary tax relief to working Americans and businesses, and to State and local governments that must pay the tax also. Second, expand the safety net for working Americans by extending unemployment insurance for 13 weeks, and providing nearly 300,000 part time workers eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits and adjusting the ``base period'' for determining eligibility. These latter two changes were recommended by a blue ribbon commission charged with making recommendations for reforming the UI program. In total the changes I am recommending would increase the cost of the program by about $9 billion this year, and only $12 billion over the next decade. Finally, the bill I am proposing today would provide for an enhancement of expensing for capital purchases, a 20 percent bonus for depreciation with a 3 year sunset. The tax benefit to businesses for new capital purchases would be nearly $26 billion this year, and $12 billion over the next decade. In total, these three provisions, packaged together to provide quick and affordable economic stimulus, would not exceed $73 billion this year and less than $62 billion over the next decade. Like so many on my side I wish we could do more in the way of speeding up the marginal tax rate cuts we enacted last spring, but it is clear that that can not pass the political test of other side. Some on the other side want to have a major expansion of health care benefits in any stimulus package, but it should be clear now that that will not pass the political test on this side of the aisle. For these reasons, I believe with time running short, this is the best possible package that we can put together that will win wide bipartisan support in the shortest amount of time and I encourage those directly involved in the, what appears to be faltering negotiations on a stimulus bill, to look at this package as a solution to acting quickly. I submit the bill to the desk for referral and I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a table outlining the proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the economy remains weak and the unemployment rate released last Friday for the month of November topped 5.7 percent. This is the highest level in over 6 years, and many economists expect it to exceed 6 percent in the coming months. Recently the economy officially was put in the category of ``recession'' beginning last March by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The economy measured by its gross national product, declined at a 1.1 percent rate in the third quarter of this year. Corporate profits are down nearly 22 percent compared to last year, and consumer confidence is down 51 points in three months, the steepest drop since 1980. While there are a couple of ``not so bad'' economic factors out there, low consumer prices, low interest rates, low oil prices for consumers, and record high auto sales, these all could be temporary phenomena related to a broader weak economy and low consumer demand. For all these reasons, I believe Congress needs to act on a stimulus bill before it adjourns this first session of the 107th congress. The American public deserves action on a stimulus bill and we need to act quickly. Too much time has passed and we cannot let politics as usual keep us from putting together a bill that can achieve wide bipartisan support quickly. I have come to the conclusion that we should adopt a bill that is not controversial, politically speaking, and that can actually do some good for the American economy in a short time period. I therefore am introducing today a bill that does three very simple things that I think we can all agree on: First, a one-month payroll tax holiday, that will provide relief from the regressive payroll tax. It would eliminate the need for both employers and employees to pay the current 12.4 percent tax. I have found wide bipartisan support for this proposal. Unfortunately it is probably too late now to implement it successfully in the month of December but I still believe it can be enacted in time to provide real relief in the first month of 2002. This proposal will provide nearly $40 billion in immediate, temporary tax relief to working Americans and businesses, and to State and local governments that must pay the tax also. Second, expand the safety net for working Americans by extending unemployment insurance for 13 weeks, and providing nearly 300,000 part time workers eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits and adjusting the ``base period'' for determining eligibility. These latter two changes were recommended by a blue ribbon commission charged with making recommendations for reforming the UI program. In total the changes I am recommending would increase the cost of the program by about $9 billion this year, and only $12 billion over the next decade. Finally, the bill I am proposing today would provide for an enhancement of expensing for capital purchases, a 20 percent bonus for depreciation with a 3 year sunset. The tax benefit to businesses for new capital purchases would be nearly $26 billion this year, and $12 billion over the next decade. In total, these three provisions, packaged together to provide quick and affordable economic stimulus, would not exceed $73 billion this year and less than $62 billion over the next decade. Like so many on my side I wish we could do more in the way of speeding up the marginal tax rate cuts we enacted last spring, but it is clear that that can not pass the political test of other side. Some on the other side want to have a major expansion of health care benefits in any stimulus package, but it should be clear now that that will not pass the political test on this side of the aisle. For these reasons, I believe with time running short, this is the best possible package that we can put together that will win wide bipartisan support in the shortest amount of time and I encourage those directly involved in the, what appears to be faltering negotiations on a stimulus bill, to look at this package as a solution to acting quickly. I submit the bill to the desk for referral and I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a table outlining the proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I speak for only 9 minutes instead of as long as I wish, but that it not be on the farm bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Am I entitled to speak for a given time or must I seek consent of the Senate?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the selfless men and women who sacrificed so much to protect freedom during the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. On that fateful day, 2,403 members of the Armed Forces lost their lives defending freedom. I salute the New Mexicans who were caught in that attack, and those who subsequently answered the call of their grateful nation to bear arms in its defense. Sixty years ago, the unwarranted attack by the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air Force on Pearl Harbor challenged the peace and well-being of this great Nation. However, the attack served as a catalyst, unifying this Nation and galvanizing the bravery of our people. With enormous self sacrifice and unbound patriotism, the ``greatest generation,'' those who lived and served during the Second World War, rose up to meet the challenge and overcame adversity. In the aftermath of September 11, this country is once again dealing with an unwarranted attack on our homeland and our freedom. As America commemorates the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, we appreciate more than ever before the heroes of the past. The American people look to that generation's courage and heroism to find solace and inspiration for meeting the threats we face today. As Americans then used every avenue available--defense programs, universities and research institutions, the national laboratories, and an energized public--to win World War II, so too, must we be just as resourceful in fighting the war on terror. Today, just as then, our national laboratories play a vital role in the fight against terrorism. In my home State of New Mexico, the laboratories are contributing to help ensure domestic preparedness and security. The anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor reminds us of those who paid the ultimate price to protect our Nation, even as brave Americans are paying that price today in the war on terror. I am honored to pay tribute to those who served, and are serving, in the defense of this great Nation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Can I do this, so I will not feel too pressed: I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 5 minutes, which I probably will not use.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay credit to a very distinguished lawyer and judge. His name is Harris Hartz. Today when we vote, if a majority votes for him--and I do not see why we would not; it might be a unanimous vote--he will become the U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. To the extent a Senator, based upon observing and asking other people, can fill himself or herself with knowledge about a person, I have to say he is probably one of the most qualified persons I have ever asked the President to put on the bench. His academic background is so superb that no one can challenge it. If Harvard Law School is a good law school, and he was among its best students--magna cum laude--all of the attributes of a great mind that was being moved and melded into a great leader mind, that happened to him. From that time on, he has been engaged in various activities that have made him a broad-based lawyer to take this job. He was a circuit judge in New Mexico, which caused him over time to publish 300 opinions, Mr. President. If people do not know him, they have not bothered to read his opinions. Whether it is being scholarly, whether he understands, whether he plays no favorites, whether he is truly a good judge, in what judges do besides knowing the law--adding all that together, the Senator from New Mexico recommended him to the President. He was thoroughly vetted at the executive branch, and obviously the background checks have occurred, and he came forth with all the right pluses attendant his name. Today, the 5- or 6-month ordeal which all candidates face--families worrying, wives and children wondering how much longer--will come to an end, and he will be sitting on the bench in the southwestern United States. I ask unanimous consent that his vitae and the Department of Justice analysis of his background be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is there some reason for 3 minutes or is it assumed I asked for 3 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to share a quote from an editorial in one of our State's leading newspapers, the Santa Fe New Mexican: The cerebral and academic Hartz is everything America wants in its judiciary. Before becoming a judge, most of Judge Hartz's legal career was as a lawyer in Albuquerque, NM. During his first 3 years after law school he was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico. After teaching for a semester in 1976 at the University of Illinois College of Law, he spent 3 years with the New Mexico Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission, first as its attorney and then as executive director. I believe Judge Hartz will be an excellent U.S. circuit judge because above all he is a person with great strength of character. He has the courage to render decisions in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. More important, I believe Judge Hartz will respect both the rights of the individual and the rights of society and will be dedicated to providing equal justice under the law. He understands and appreciates the genius of our Federal system and the delicate checks and balances among the branches of our National Government. Judge Hartz also understands New Mexico because he was raised in Farmington. Judge Hartz's 29 years of experience both as a lawyer and a judge have prepared him well for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe Judge Hartz will be a fine circuit judge. I count him among my friends, and I recommend him highly to the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before we are finished with the appropriations bill that will be before the Senate shortly and the economic stimulus package that someday will come up--I do not know when--I am very hopeful this will not end up being a partisan charade, but I can cite a couple items that do bother me. I was reading Roll Call a couple days ago. I understood the majority leader made a statement that whoever was on that committee to produce a stimulus, they had gotten the message from the leadership and the Democrats that unless two-thirds of the Democrats were for the package, they could not take it out of this conference committee. It would not come out. That is an interesting statement. I assume it is pretty partisan, too. Things operate in the Senate on a majority basis. We do not need two- thirds of Democrats and Republicans to produce a stimulus package. In any event, I hope that is not a sign that it is going to be partisan because we do have a chance to produce a stimulus package that will be worthwhile. From my standpoint, I think I am going to put together a stimulus package--what would go this with that, that with this. I might do that in the next couple days and at least come to the Chamber and talk about a stimulus package and why it is a stimulus package. It is important to not just work on what we choose to call a stimulus package. The occupant of the chair would like to know that it produces new jobs, that it puts people to work, along with the other issues, such as unemployment compensation, perhaps some health care activity. Clearly, we have to put some provisions in the bill that will encourage this economy in a realistic way. I will be watching. Everyone else will be watching. I hope we can get it done in due course. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad. As chairman of the Budget Committee, it is really welcome that he would join me in this endeavor. As a matter of fact, I believe by his joining, he makes the case that we are not trying to kill this bill. He has been a staunch advocate. I just told railroad retirees I am voting for the bill. I didn't tell them, nor did I tell the Senator, that I used to work for the railroad. I was a baggage clerk when I was 22. It was a fun job. I didn't work long enough to be part of any of this program. I want everybody to know, I have no interest. It was a great summer job. I became friends with some wonderful railroaders. I repeat, so that nobody misunderstands the Senator's views, this takes out of the bill some language that is not needed for this bill and that in essence treats this bill in a way that says what is isn't; it is going to cost this much, but it is not going to cost it because we wrote language in the bill saying it isn't. That is not the way to pass a bill. We don't do that for anybody on anything. I welcome the Senator's support. I think it is a good way for him to start his chairmanship, saying that he is going to watch the rules carefully and abide by them. I thank the Senator so much for joining me. (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2202 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put before the Senate an interesting, simple amendment that we as a Senate should adopt. I hope this amendment is aired for a while. Because Senators have asked me not to, I do not have any intention to move rapidly. Other Senators are presently indisposed and they might come and perhaps become cosponsors. We will see what we can do. But I want to make sure the Domenici amendment No. 2202 will not be mistaken for anything other than what it is. This amendment is not a killer amendment with reference to the underlying amendment. The railroad retirement bill will in no way be damaged by this amendment. This amendment is just a very simple recognition that the bill has some language in it that shouldn't be in it. As much as we want to do for the railroad retirees and for all of those who have joined in a rather mass number of Senators who want to see this happen--that is, passage of the bill--they actually should join in saying we want to do this. But we want to be honest with the American people in terms of what the bill costs and how you should score the actual costs against the Treasury. My amendment would strike what we call directed scorekeeping language out of section 105. This technical language inserted just before the House passed the bill instructs the Office of Management and Budget to deviate--let me go slow here so everybody will get it--from the standard accounting practice when implementing this bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the provision allowing private investment in equities would increase outlays by $15.3 billion in 2002. That means, if you follow the way we do things in a normal manner pursuant to the rules and guidelines in the law, this bill adds $15.3 billion in increased outlays. That is a matter of the Congressional Budget Office doing its work and telling us the answer when they are asked the question, How much does the bill cost? What do you put on the books of the United States? They did their work. Now this bill, at the last minute, deviates from the standard accounting to the extent of $15.3 billion. If my amendment is agreed to, which strikes the language permitting the deviation and permitting the violation of the Congressional Budget Office, it does nothing, except it puts before us the reality, the truth. It doesn't cause the bill to be any more or any less in conformance with the rules and the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't make the bill subject to a point of order. It is already subject to that. That has nothing to do with this amendment that I am offering to clarify and make consistent this bill, and make it consistent with what we ought to do in following the language and process and past procedures with reference to the estimated cost. Once again, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the provision allowing private investment in equities would increase outlays by $15.3 billion in 2002. It doesn't say you can't do it. It doesn't say you shouldn't do it. It just says if you do it, report it. Just put it in here. Ask the Congressional Budget Office and report their answer. Don't ask the Congressional Budget Office and then say, regardless of their answer, which we are supposed to follow, we are going to determine and declare that we are not going to follow it. That is called directed scoring--telling them how to score things contrary to the rules, contrary to reality, and contrary to the way we have been doing it. That is pathetic. We shouldn't do that on any bill. I repeat that it does not kill the bill. It does not damage the bill. It just reports the reality of the bill for bookkeeping and scorekeeping, which I believe the American people want. They don't want one bill, as good as it is, to have inserted in it just before it passes the House language saying that whatever the reality and the truth is, don't report it this time for this bill. Just report it another way. All I do is strike that language saying report it that way. It is a very simple idea. It is simple to understand. Just take that language out, return it to language which an ordinary, everyday bill of this type would have had in it and should be expected to be part of what we do. By preventing the OMB from reporting that expenditure as an outlay, this, in fact, deviates from; it distorts. It makes us look at something and say it isn't what it is. That is a good way to say it. We just put language in saying no matter what it is, it isn't. I am saying no matter what it is, it is, in taking out the language that would do the contrary. The Government has always recorded any investment from equities to research and development and to education and training as an outlay. The Government should get a good rate of return on all types of investments. In contrast to private sector accounting, we record these investments as an expenditure because the Government operates under cash accounting rules. We certainly cannot use that fact as a reason for changing it. If we are going to choose to change that system of accounting, we shouldn't do it selectively for one bill, no matter how good the bill is, and no matter how much support it has. You ought to change the whole system after a thoughtful evaluation of whether we should continue to use that kind of an approach. I will not go into the reasons why the Federal Government uses the cash accounting system instead of an accrual accounting system. But I will say that the Federal Government has operated under cash accounting rules since 1789, the first year Congress appropriated $639,000 to cover the expenses of our new government. This isn't the time to change the rules. Obviously, it is neither the time, nor the bill. It is a bill with great support. I am going to support it. It seems to have huge support. We will get it done, but we ought not choose the bill to change the rules of accounting that have existed for our Government since 1789, the first time Congress appropriated $639,000 as our expenditure. We know, from example, in the private sector that bending the accounting rules creates confusion for the same reason we should not bend the accounting rules of the Federal Government to suit our purpose. Doing so reduces transparency and misleads the public. If my amendment is not agreed to, this bill will set a troubling precedent for Social Security. Under current accounting practices, both the Government and the privately controlled investments of Social Security funds in stocks are treated consistently. They would increase outlays. If Government-controlled investments were not reported as outlay proposals to collectively invest in Social Security, the assets would have a significant advantage over proposals to create individual accounts. I don't think that should be done. Certainly we wouldn't want to use this as a precedent for that. That is one of the problems when you violate precedent and pluck something out and say, we are not going to use it now, for whatever reason. We would rather not show the accounting as it is or for real. Specifically, the proposals to have the Government invest in Social Security assets would be free, whereas proposals to establish individual accounts would cost trillions of dollars. We understand that is not justified. This bill should not be used as something that gives impetus to that conclusion in a completely different area of huge confusion. Regardless of whether you support individual accounts for Social Security, as the President's commission is about to propose, or collective investments such as President Clinton proposed, it doesn't make much sense for budget rules to save one policy over another. That is why I think we should be consistent, and do what is right. Finally, the directed scorekeeping language in the bill creates a 306 budget point of order against the entire Railroad Retirement Act. The point of order prevents Congress from changing the budget rules unless the proposal is reported from the Budget Committee. My amendment, by dropping the directed scorekeeping language, will ensure that we follow the right accounting proposals. But understand, I do not make a point of order. There are plenty of votes for this bill. But I think plenty of those votes ought to be used to correct the accounting so there is no black mark that follows this bill around as to why did we have to do that. We do not have to do that. We just do not have to do it. At the point it went through the House, maybe it was some way to affect the cost and make it easier to get through because we were not going to charge so much against the surplus of the country. All of those kinds of problems have long gone away. As the occupant of the chair knows, we have been spending the surplus for many months. All of the spending that took place on behalf of the New York incident was out of the surplus there. We began to break the bank, so to speak. So if there was some reason to manage or distort the real cost, it does not exist any longer. In fact, we should not have done it anyway. But if that was the reason, it is not needed and we ought to fix it. That one change will not kill this bill. It has nothing to do with the life. Whether it is good or not so good, this action just gets rid of something that puts a little black mark or maybe even a big black mark on this bill as seeking some superattention by way of the budget rules that follow this. That is all I have to say. But I note the presence of the chairman of the Budget Committee in this Chamber. From my standpoint, I am ready to proceed. But I do not want to cut anybody out of either joining me as a cosponsor or speaking. So with that, I make a parliamentary inquiry. Was there a certain amount of time allocated to the Senator from New Mexico for this amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself the 2\1/2\ minutes that I have. First, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for cosponsoring this amendment. Second, for those--they are numerous in the Senate--who are for the railroad retirement bill, this amendment is not a poison pill for the railroad retirement bill. It does not impact how this bill will be implemented. It simply will make sure the costs are recorded correctly. If you record them correctly rather than direct how they will be scored, you have no impact on whether the bill proceeds. There is no additional point of order or anything that is an impediment to the bill. It is just that we very seldom, if ever, let a bill go through that costs money where we direct how it should be scored. In this case, the Congressional Budget Office was asked how much it will cost. They told us. Instead of scoring it as we would normally in almost every single bill that affects spending, the House, in the final moments as this bill was getting ready to be passed, put in language saying it shouldn't be scored as it is; we want to score it another way; we direct it not be scored costing $15.3 billion. All I ask is that provision be stricken. The bill does not have language in it, if the Domenici amendment is agreed to, that directs how you score it, but rather the costs will be scored as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, which does the same thing for every bill that goes through. Bills do not have language telling you that you must score it differently than you score all the other bills and differently than the Congressional Budget Office indicates. I reserve whatever time I have and yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have to Senator Conrad and thank him for cosponsoring the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What bill is pending before the Senate? What are the agreements regarding it?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. DOMENICI. Has a vote been ordered?