Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley. First, I want to take a couple of minutes on history. Some Senators, clearly led by Senator Byrd, have spoken to the issue of should we be reducing taxes in a reconciliation bill. I want to remind everyone that Congress passed, in 1974, a new law which had to do with the congressional budget process. I want to quote from it and tell you three historical events which would indicate that we are doing what we have done on a number of occasions with reference to the Budget Act and reconciliation instructions that apply to taxes. First of all, 1 week ago today, exactly, this body of Senators adopted a fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. Now, as in many things, all Senators didn't agree. But that resolution, with an instruction to reduce taxes by a total of $1.25 trillion over 10 years, with $100 billion available for the first 2 years to be spent by the Committee on Tax Relief has to do with stimulating the economy for a total of $1.35 trillion over 11 years. Within 1 week, the Committee on Finance--again in a bipartisan manner--I might say to the Senate, you might recall that the budget resolution, with an instruction on the taxes, passed the senate with 15 Democrats voting along with all Republicans, except 2. So it was a very bipartisan instruction to reduce taxes. Within 1 week, the Committee on Finance has complied with this reconciliation instruction and has presented to the full Senate a bill that reduces revenues or increases outlays for a total of $1.347 trillion over the next 11 years. Remarkably good work. Obviously, when you set these kinds of annual and multiyear mandates with reference to taxes, you can't do everything you want, and you can't do every one as clean as you would like. But the policies included in this bill will be discussed shortly. Let me first talk about the criticism we should not be using reconciliation, that is, the fast-track procedures permitted under law, for tax reductions. First, I want to read the Budget Act of 1974: Inclusion of Reconciliation Directives in Concurrent Resolutions on the Budget.--A concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution shall--(1) specify the total amount by which revenues are to be changed and direct that the committees having jurisdiction do determine and recommend changes-- To accomplish that-- Continuing to read: and resolutions to accomplish a change of such amount to comply with the policies of the resolution. I note this section of the act says ``changes.'' It does not say that the only thing reconciliation can be used for is to raise taxes, nor does it say the only thing it can be used for is to cut taxes. It simply says ``effectuate'' the policies of the underlying resolution. Over time, yes, we were faced with deficits and used reconciliation for tax increase instructions and for spending cut instructions, but times have changed, and since fiscal year 1997, budget resolutions have passed the Senate that have considered tax reconciliation bills on three separate occasions. One was signed by President Clinton, one was vetoed by President Clinton, and one was never presented to him because he said he would veto it. But the Senate and the Congress, after a conference, actually passed tax bills that were the result of an instruction in a budget resolution that such be done to carry out the policies of the budget resolution. There are some who say they wish it were not so. I do not know if I am prepared to debate that today. All I am prepared to say is those who criticize it should know it has its genesis in this Budget Act which was passed by all Senators, except one, voting for it years ago. I have read the operative language, and I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that we have not in any way exceeded what the Senate of the United States has heretofore indicated can be done in a budget resolution regarding reduction of taxes by an instruction. In the FY 1997 budget debate, on a rollcall vote, the Senate established the precedent for including tax cut reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution under expedited procedures of the Budget Act. That year the Congress presented the President with a $122.5 billion six-year tax cut reconciliation bill. The President vetoed that reconciliation bill. In the FY 1998 budget debate, the Congress adopted instructions for a tax cut reconciliation bill for $85 billion over a 5-year period. The Finance Committee and the Congress complied with the instruction. The President signed that tax cut reconciliation bill. In the FY 1999 budget debate there were no reconciliation instructions. In the FY 2000 budget debate, a 10-year reconciliation tax cut of $778 billion was included in the budget resolution. The Finance Committee and the Congress once again complied with the instruction, and the President vetoed that tax cut reconciliation bill. Finally in last year's budget debate the budget resolution permitted two separate tax cut reconciliation bills. The Senate considered and passed the first tax cut reconciliation bill, but it was never presented to the President. The second tax cut reconciliation bill was never considered. The bottom line--there is nothing untoward about a tax cut reconciliation bill. There is nothing unprecedented about a tax cut reconciliation bill. Indeed, I believe the Budget Act is working as it should--it permits Congress to work its will and to implement its fiscal policy once it adopts a budget resolution. What is unprecedented is a budget surplus estimate of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Even when with the tax reductions included in this bill, total taxes will still grow annually nearly 4.3 percent over the next decade. Total taxes will still increase from $2.135 trillion today to over $3.256 trillion in FY 2011. We will collect over $26.6 trillion in taxes these next 10 years even with the tax cuts included in this reconciliation bill. Federal revenues as a percentage of the size of the economy, will only modestly be reduced from its historic high today of 20.7 percent to 19.2 percent in 2011. Finally, all tax provisions are fully phased in by 2011. Those who come here to the floor and suggest somehow the tax cuts are going to explode over the next 10 years after 2011, are misleading. When fully phased in 2011--everything--the tax reductions in 2011 will be about $185 billion in that year. Number games can be easily played. Yes, extending the fully phased in tax cuts in this bill over the period 2011-2022--20 years from now--could mean $2 trillion in tax cuts beyond the $1.350 trillion in this bill. That is not an explosion, that is simple arithmetic. I want to quickly go through what is in this bill as I see it. I compliment the Republicans and the Democrats who got it through committee and are in the Chamber defending it. First, retroactive to January 1, 2001, it creates a new 10-percent bracket for the first $12,000 of adjusted gross income for couples. It reduces all marginal rates effective January 2, 2002. The top rate is reduced to 36 percent by 2007. For those who think that is done quickly and costs an enormous amount in the early years, it is not so. It doubles the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 over 10 years and makes the child credit generously refundable. I repeat, it makes the child credit generously refundable. There were many in our respective States who heard the first tax proposals, and they did not have any refundability for the tax credit and indicated that for poor States and populations in poor States, it might be better if we had refundability. However that occurred, I thank the committee in behalf of my State. It is important we have that. We are debating marriage penalty relief, whether we should do more or change it, but it sets a standard deduction for couples at two times the single level. It sets the 15-percent bracket for couples at two times the single level. Incidentally, it also increases the EITC, earned-income tax credit. Some thought over time that was not a good approach to tax law, but it has been increased all the way up, in some instances, to as high as $35,000. It includes, with which everybody should be pleased, a $33 billion educational tax relief that is spread throughout this bill, and it reduces the estate tax over time, not immediately but it increases the exemptions rather quickly in increments of a million dollars, and over a full 2011 cycle it will eliminate the tax; it will impose a capital gains tax of sorts on the beneficiaries of large estates. I single out Senator Kyl of Arizona for his complete commitment and dedication to changing this estate tax. I can see as a member of the committee where Senator Kyl has had a very big impact on the committee. The next item is IRA tax relief. Everybody has become familiar with pensions and IRAs. It includes a $40 billion increase in the tax reductions that can occur by changes in pensions and IRA relief. It is a pretty good law. It changes the alternative minimum exemption by $2,000 single and $4,000 joint. It obviously does not do the entire alternative minimum adjustment necessary, but it does more than many people thought because, indeed, it does not affect any more people and starts changing a little bit with reference to the alternative minimum as it applies to others rather than those who would have been affected by this legislation. In essence, it makes the Tax Code more progressive. That is difficult for some to believe in a tax package that also reduces marginal rates from top to bottom. Every marginal rate will be reduced. It makes the Tax Code more progressive. Wealthy taxpayers will pay a larger share of the income tax than they do now. Whoever wants to argue about whether the top levels should have had a marginal rate cut, the entire package is more progressive, and when you are finished and add up the income tax, the higher tax payers will pay a bigger percentage now than they were paying before the marginal rates were reduced. I close by talking about my State. I have done my best, with the best people I have, to give a rough estimate of what happens to people in New Mexico with this bill. First, every New Mexico taxpayer gets a tax cut. In our little State, 539,000 families filed returns; 113,000 small businesses; 534,000 children will be eligible for the child tax credit. That has been doubled and made refundable over time; 304,000 couples in New Mexico who file jointly will benefit over time from the marriage penalty relief, and 179,000 families claimed the earned-income credit. With the expansion of the family earnings up to $35,100, they will be able to claim this credit. It is a major help to the families in New Mexico who are not in the high brackets, and since we have so many in the middle- and low-income brackets, this bill, because of the bipartisan nature of it, as I see it, has taken a giant step to be helpful to them. I close by saying it was not too long ago that a new President was sworn in and went to the White House. He said: I am going to try to keep my campaign commitments. One of his commitments was he was going to reduce taxes. He was talking about a dollar number of $1.6 trillion. Some people think that was over 11 years, some over 10 years. Some think it was really $1.3 trillion adjusted for something. In any event, I say, Mr. President--not the Presiding Officer, but President Bush down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue--when this finally becomes law, and it will not be too long when the House and Senate get this bill and do their final work, you can look at the American people and say: Here is another commitment made, a commitment that I achieved. With the help of Congress, and in this case bipartisan out of committee, hopefully bipartisan when we pass it, we have said to the President: We agree with you. The commitment to give back some of this enormous surplus to the American people so that it is not on the table to spend but, rather, it is committed back to their pockets, to their pocketbooks, to their checking accounts, that will have been achieved. I believe there will be plenty of money to pay down the debt in about as rapid a fashion as we can, and I believe there will be about a $500 billion to $600 billion contingency fund over this decade that can still be used in addition to what we plan for tax cuts and what we plan for the appropriations process. For those who had in mind large new programs for the Federal Government and had their eye on this surplus, what we are saying is we are not going to wait to deal tax relief at the bottom of the deck of cards. We are going to deal, then, right upfront. We will say to people who pay: This Government receives more than it needs; we will give it back to you over time. That means it won't be there on the table, as we look at budgets, to spend on just anything because we will have spent it on a very good purpose; that is, we will have given it back to the American people to spend, for them to plan, for them to use. It is a pretty good conclusion to a very difficult budget process which took many hours and a lot of energy. For this Senator, as chairman, it was difficult. We had to do some difficult things that I wouldn't like to do every year. I hope we get bipartisan support for this use of the surplus. I think it is an appropriate use. We come back down to reality, with a big surplus plan expected. What should we do with it? Let it sit around to spend on making government bigger or should we first give some back? We have adopted as a policy giving back some of it, yet leaving enough for the realistic approach to government and growth in government that might be needed. I close by saying that the same President who made that proposal has had the best people in the country work with our Vice President to produce a real effort to place before the American people a practical, realistic proposal with reference to our energy future--I should not say of America, I should say to the people of America. A realistic energy proposal is the next thing the President has on the table. I predict to all those who are critical upfront, realism will set in, in the next couple of months, and something similar to what the President asked for in his realistic energy approach will be on the floor. Members will be saying: Mr. President, you made a commitment to make America energy sufficient with reference to electricity in the future, and also sought to conserve and make us as independent as possible in the area of refined products from crude oil. I believe we will be saying: Congratulations, Mr. President. The second big commitment accomplished. Unless there is a real, realistic, practical alternative that is not something like price controls on everything in the area of gasoline refined products and the like, which will do nothing but share the shortages, we will be right back in the muddle. We will do something that will do credit to this new leader and do credit to ourselves as Americans who have to get something done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of Dr. Jay C. Davis, the first Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, more commonly known as ``DTRA.'' Jay completes his tenure as the Director on June 21, 2001 and will be returning to Lawrence Livemore National Laboratory. In October 1998, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was established by the Department of Defense to respond to the growing threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, so called ``weapons of mass destruction'' or WMD. DTRA was charged to integrate and focus the capabilities of the Department on the present and future WMD threat. The new Agency needed a Director and the Department picked Jay to establish the Agency, provide its vision, and assure its rapid success. Jay's accomplishments make him an excellent choice for this job. While Jay, a nuclear physicist, had spent the majority of his career at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, he's been active in treaty verification and nonproliferation technologies, as well as the design of research and development collaborations. He served as scientific advisor to the United Nations Secretariat, several US agencies, and to the scientific agencies of the governments of Australia and New Zealand. He participated in two UN inspections in Iraq. Jay is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and was one of its Centennial Lecturers in its 100th Anniversary Year. The author of more than seventy published works in his discipline, he also holds three patents on analytical techniques and applications. During his three years at DTRA, Jay created an agency that is widely respected. Today, DTRA performs many important missions. It is partnered with the Commanders-in-Chief of the combatant commands, the Services, and the Department of Energy on the maintenance of the physical and doctrinal components of our nuclear deterrent. It provides warfighters with tools to prevail against WMD. DTRA also executes all arms control treaty inspections, cooperative agreements, and technology control activities in the Department of Defense. In addition, Jay has been instrumental in leading and defining the Department's role in supporting local and state agencies in WMD terrorism response operations. Under his leadership, DTRA has contributed significantly to the evolving concept of homeland defense. Jay has twice been awarded the Distinguished Public Service Medal by the Secretary of Defense, DoD's highest civilian award, for his contributions to national security. He and his wife May soon will return to the Livermore valley, where he will become the first National Security Fellow at the Lab's Center for Global Security Research. In this new position, Jay will do what he does best, bringing together scientists and technologists with policy analysts to study ways in which technology can enhance national security. I congratulate Jay on all his accomplishments at DTRA and wish him the best in his future endeavors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 310(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, provides the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee with authority to revise committee allocations, functional levels, and budgetary aggregates for a reconciliation bill which fulfills an instruction with respect to both outlays and revenues. The Chairman's authority under 310(c) may be exercised if the following conditions have been satisfied: 1. The Committee on Finance reports a bill which changes the mix of the instructed revenue and outlay changes by not more than 20 percent of the sum of the components of the instruction, and 2. The Committee on Finance still complies with the overall reconciliation instruction. I find that S. 896, as reported, satisfies the two conditions above and, pursuant to my authority under section 310(c), I hereby submit revisions to H. Con. Res. 83, the 2002 Budget Resolution. The attached tables show the current 2002 Budget Resolution figures as well as the revised committee allocations, functional levels, and budgetary aggregates, and I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material in S. 896 considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. To the best of my knowledge, S. 896, the Restoring Earnings to Lift Individuals and Empower Families (RELIEF) Reconciliation Act of 2001, contains no material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Hatch, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Technical Amendments and Refinement Act. These technical amendments are needed because the RECA amendments we passed in 2000 inadvertently eliminated some claimants previously eligible for compensation and made it more difficult for other claimants to prove eligibility. These technical amendments are very important, but perhaps more importantly this bill provides mandatory funding for the now-bankrupt RECA Trust Fund. For over a year now, eligible claimants have been receiving nothing more than a five-line IOU from the Justice Department. This is an injustice I never imagined when I authored the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990--an injustice that can and must be rectified through this bill. RECA was designed to compensate our nation's uranium mine workers who became afflicted with debilitating and too often deadly radiation- related diseases. These men helped build our nuclear arsenal--the arsenal that is, at least in part, responsible for ending the cold war. We must not let their sacrifice go unanswered. These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank underground water that exposed them to radiation. These miners faced long, uncomfortable days many feet underground. Many of those uranium miners from New Mexico who endured these conditions were Native Americans from the Najavo Nation. To this group of victims, our government owes a special duty of care based on a longstanding trust relationship formed by treaties and agreements. Mr. President, the Najavos and all the uranium miners performed a special service for our nation, and our nation owes them a special obligation. An obligation that it has twice failed to keep. Strike one: The government had adequate warning about the radiation hazards of uranium mining, and yet federal mine safety standards were not fully implemented until 1971. Thus, prior to 1971, the miners were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no warning regarding the dangers of radiation. Strike two: The government has failed to keep the program fully funded. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our nation's security must be compensated for their suffering. Anything less is unacceptable. Mr. President, our legislation today would ensure that the government does not strike out. These men served our nation well, and it is time for this nation to serve them well.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Hatch, to introduce the Radiation Exposure Compensation Technical Amendments and Refinement Act. These technical amendments are needed because the RECA amendments we passed in 2000 inadvertently eliminated some claimants previously eligible for compensation and made it more difficult for other claimants to prove eligibility. These technical amendments are very important, but perhaps more importantly this bill provides mandatory funding for the now-bankrupt RECA Trust Fund. For over a year now, eligible claimants have been receiving nothing more than a five-line IOU from the Justice Department. This is an injustice I never imagined when I authored the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990--an injustice that can and must be rectified through this bill. RECA was designed to compensate our nation's uranium mine workers who became afflicted with debilitating and too often deadly radiation- related diseases. These men helped build our nuclear arsenal--the arsenal that is, at least in part, responsible for ending the cold war. We must not let their sacrifice go unanswered. These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank underground water that exposed them to radiation. These miners faced long, uncomfortable days many feet underground. Many of those uranium miners from New Mexico who endured these conditions were Native Americans from the Najavo Nation. To this group of victims, our government owes a special duty of care based on a longstanding trust relationship formed by treaties and agreements. Mr. President, the Najavos and all the uranium miners performed a special service for our nation, and our nation owes them a special obligation. An obligation that it has twice failed to keep. Strike one: The government had adequate warning about the radiation hazards of uranium mining, and yet federal mine safety standards were not fully implemented until 1971. Thus, prior to 1971, the miners were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no warning regarding the dangers of radiation. Strike two: The government has failed to keep the program fully funded. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our nation's security must be compensated for their suffering. Anything less is unacceptable. Mr. President, our legislation today would ensure that the government does not strike out. These men served our nation well, and it is time for this nation to serve them well.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 884 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Port-of-Entry Infrastructure Improvement Act. The Southwest border region has been ignored for far too long, and as a result, has lagged behind the rest of the Nation in many areas. Poor health and environmental quality, inadequate infrastructure, and fewer technological and educational resources are common facts of life along much of the Southwest Border. Last year, the U.S.-Mexico Border had a population of 12.6 million. By 2020, the region will have more than 21 million residents. That means that the southwest border region is growing at more than twice the national average and 40 percent faster than the U.S.'s fastest growing states. And what has been the engine of this tremendous growth? Trade. When the North American Free Trade Agreement came into effect in 1994, U.S.- Mexico trade totaled $100 billion. In 1999 trade between the two countries accounted for $197 billion, a near doubling in only 5 years. Unfortunately, we have failed to invest in the Southwest Border to accommodate this tremendous growth. In 1999, eighty-six percent of U.S- Mexico trade was transported across the border by trucks. Yet, rather than promote a system where trade can flourish, we have congested traffic lanes where drivers have to wait three even 5 hours before crossing the border. These lines include all manner of people and industry, from a truck filled with auto parts en route to Detroit to hungry tourists wanting an authentic taco to service employees who live in Mexico and work in the United States. The effect of these unnecessary traffic backlogs is two-fold. First, significant delays at our nation's ports-of-entry along the Southwest Border results in inefficient trade. This works at cross purposes with ``just in time delivery.'' A primary reason that U.S.-Mexico trade has increased so dramatically is that the border allows companies to benefit from ``just in time'' delivery. Using ``just in time,'' firms eliminate warehousing and preservation costs, resulting in lower prices and more efficient delivery. Primary producers, intermediary companies, downstream retailers, and customers all rely on the timely delivery of goods and services. But huge backlogs makes ``just-in-time'' delivery more like delivery ``some time.'' When delivery times increase or are uncertain, associated costs increase for everyone down the product and user chain. Second, long traffic backlogs detrimentally affect the people who live along the Southwest Border. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that, ``the border's health conditions and risks * * * are among the most troubling and the most serious in the United States. Health and environmental problems seem to be most prevalent in poverty stricken areas. The Southwest Border is one of the poorest regions in the nation. In fact, nearly 27 percent of New Mexico's Dona Ana County live below the poverty line, double the national average, and other counties along the border are even worse off. For example, 40 percent of Maverick County, Texas' population live below the poverty level. We cannot continue to focus on the increased wealth the Nation enjoys from trade while ignoring the burden that trade imposes on border residents. Long backlogs at ports-of-entry along the Southwest Border creates a substantial hardship on the people in the region. The EPA report concluded that the border disproportionately suffers from serious health threats due, in part, to airborne pollutants from vehicle emissions. Increased trade means ever increasing vehicle emissions. A recent study by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation found that truck traffic increases 8.6 percent per year. An 8.6 percent increase means that by 2020, commodity truck flows will be 5.5 times greater than 1999 levels. That study never considered the recent NAFTA arbitration panel ruling that the U.S.'s policy prohibiting Mexican trucks beyond twenty miles from the border violates the trade agreement. I would like the U.S. to promote trade so that the entire Nation's economy continues to grow. Yet, we need to act pro-actively with foresight and responsible planning so that the Southwest Border infrastructure can adequately handle the projected and likely traffic increases. I would like to see the engine that is our economy keep running. I just want that engine to run faster, quieter, and smoother. That's why I am introducing the Southwest Border Infrastructure Improvement Act. This bill provides funds to improve our ports-of-entry and ensure efficient binational trade in the future. Specifically, this bill directs the U.S. Customs Service to update the ``Ports of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study'' within 6 months of enactment. Pursuant to the updated study, it provides $500 million to be spent over five years for the recommended improvements. Second, this legislation recognizes our unique shared border and relationship with Mexico. It considers that a unilateral solution along a binational border is no solution at all. Therefore, this bill establishes a $75 million grant fund for FY02 and other sums for 2003-2006 through the Department of Transportation for port-of-entry infrastructure improvements that would reduce negative environmental impacts, such as air pollution, associated with cross-border transportation. The grant program will be administered by the North American Development Bank and certified by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission. Grant applicants must meet a dollar for dollar match requirement to receive grant funds. Last, this bill recognizes that new technologies must be developed to facilitate future binational trade. Our current system of processing goods at ports is impractical, overly burdensome, and is a substantial factor in traffic backlogs. In order to innovate more efficient processing systems, this legislation designates that a port-of-entry will serve as a site to demonstrate port technologies. The Customs Service will carry out a program to test and evaluate such new technologies. This bill provides $10 million for 2002 and other sums from 2003 through 2006 for that purpose. The selected port must have sufficient space to conduct the demonstration program, have low traffic volume so that new technologies may be incorporated without interrupting normal processing activity, and have a relatively modern design. The recent NAFTA arbitration panel ruling concerning the U.S.'s policy prohibiting Mexican trucks from entering the United States brings our infrastructure limitations to the forefront. It is imperative to improve the Southwest Border's inadequate infrastructure and design. We must act to ensure continued national growth while working to improve the health and environment of border residents.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Port-of-Entry Infrastructure Improvement Act. The Southwest border region has been ignored for far too long, and as a result, has lagged behind the rest of the Nation in many areas. Poor health and environmental quality, inadequate infrastructure, and fewer technological and educational resources are common facts of life along much of the Southwest Border. Last year, the U.S.-Mexico Border had a population of 12.6 million. By 2020, the region will have more than 21 million residents. That means that the southwest border region is growing at more than twice the national average and 40 percent faster than the U.S.'s fastest growing states. And what has been the engine of this tremendous growth? Trade. When the North American Free Trade Agreement came into effect in 1994, U.S.- Mexico trade totaled $100 billion. In 1999 trade between the two countries accounted for $197 billion, a near doubling in only 5 years. Unfortunately, we have failed to invest in the Southwest Border to accommodate this tremendous growth. In 1999, eighty-six percent of U.S- Mexico trade was transported across the border by trucks. Yet, rather than promote a system where trade can flourish, we have congested traffic lanes where drivers have to wait three even 5 hours before crossing the border. These lines include all manner of people and industry, from a truck filled with auto parts en route to Detroit to hungry tourists wanting an authentic taco to service employees who live in Mexico and work in the United States. The effect of these unnecessary traffic backlogs is two-fold. First, significant delays at our nation's ports-of-entry along the Southwest Border results in inefficient trade. This works at cross purposes with ``just in time delivery.'' A primary reason that U.S.-Mexico trade has increased so dramatically is that the border allows companies to benefit from ``just in time'' delivery. Using ``just in time,'' firms eliminate warehousing and preservation costs, resulting in lower prices and more efficient delivery. Primary producers, intermediary companies, downstream retailers, and customers all rely on the timely delivery of goods and services. But huge backlogs makes ``just-in-time'' delivery more like delivery ``some time.'' When delivery times increase or are uncertain, associated costs increase for everyone down the product and user chain. Second, long traffic backlogs detrimentally affect the people who live along the Southwest Border. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that, ``the border's health conditions and risks * * * are among the most troubling and the most serious in the United States. Health and environmental problems seem to be most prevalent in poverty stricken areas. The Southwest Border is one of the poorest regions in the nation. In fact, nearly 27 percent of New Mexico's Dona Ana County live below the poverty line, double the national average, and other counties along the border are even worse off. For example, 40 percent of Maverick County, Texas' population live below the poverty level. We cannot continue to focus on the increased wealth the Nation enjoys from trade while ignoring the burden that trade imposes on border residents. Long backlogs at ports-of-entry along the Southwest Border creates a substantial hardship on the people in the region. The EPA report concluded that the border disproportionately suffers from serious health threats due, in part, to airborne pollutants from vehicle emissions. Increased trade means ever increasing vehicle emissions. A recent study by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation found that truck traffic increases 8.6 percent per year. An 8.6 percent increase means that by 2020, commodity truck flows will be 5.5 times greater than 1999 levels. That study never considered the recent NAFTA arbitration panel ruling that the U.S.'s policy prohibiting Mexican trucks beyond twenty miles from the border violates the trade agreement. I would like the U.S. to promote trade so that the entire Nation's economy continues to grow. Yet, we need to act pro-actively with foresight and responsible planning so that the Southwest Border infrastructure can adequately handle the projected and likely traffic increases. I would like to see the engine that is our economy keep running. I just want that engine to run faster, quieter, and smoother. That's why I am introducing the Southwest Border Infrastructure Improvement Act. This bill provides funds to improve our ports-of-entry and ensure efficient binational trade in the future. Specifically, this bill directs the U.S. Customs Service to update the ``Ports of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study'' within 6 months of enactment. Pursuant to the updated study, it provides $500 million to be spent over five years for the recommended improvements. Second, this legislation recognizes our unique shared border and relationship with Mexico. It considers that a unilateral solution along a binational border is no solution at all. Therefore, this bill establishes a $75 million grant fund for FY02 and other sums for 2003-2006 through the Department of Transportation for port-of-entry infrastructure improvements that would reduce negative environmental impacts, such as air pollution, associated with cross-border transportation. The grant program will be administered by the North American Development Bank and certified by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission. Grant applicants must meet a dollar for dollar match requirement to receive grant funds. Last, this bill recognizes that new technologies must be developed to facilitate future binational trade. Our current system of processing goods at ports is impractical, overly burdensome, and is a substantial factor in traffic backlogs. In order to innovate more efficient processing systems, this legislation designates that a port-of-entry will serve as a site to demonstrate port technologies. The Customs Service will carry out a program to test and evaluate such new technologies. This bill provides $10 million for 2002 and other sums from 2003 through 2006 for that purpose. The selected port must have sufficient space to conduct the demonstration program, have low traffic volume so that new technologies may be incorporated without interrupting normal processing activity, and have a relatively modern design. The recent NAFTA arbitration panel ruling concerning the U.S.'s policy prohibiting Mexican trucks from entering the United States brings our infrastructure limitations to the forefront. It is imperative to improve the Southwest Border's inadequate infrastructure and design. We must act to ensure continued national growth while working to improve the health and environment of border residents.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a family-owned business in my home State of New Mexico, which is not only a staple and generous partner in the community, but has grown to be one of the largest Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States. This company, Bueno Foods, this week celebrates its Golden Anniversary--50 years of producing premiere New Mexican food products. The company, housed in Albuquerque's South Valley, is a pride for the community. Started back in 1951, the company provided the means for the Baca brothers, Joe, Ray and Augustine, to provide for themselves, their family, and improve their community. In the years after World War II, the Baca brothers first opened a grocery store that prospered until supermarket chains started to infiltrate the Albuquerque market. The brothers realized that in order to stay in business for themselves, they needed a new direction. So they expanded their business by featuring the traditional New Mexican recipes of their mother, Filomena. Their company became the first commercial producer of flame- roasted, fresh frozen green chile. Today the name ``Bueno Foods'' is synonymous with that frozen green chile. Since those days, the company has grown from a company with five employees to one with 240 workers. Still family run by the Baca family, its purpose has not only been to provide high-quality, authentic products, but also good jobs and active community involvement. Even with its large growth, the company has kept its roots and main plant in the South Valley, a historic and proud part of Albuquerque. Throughout the years, Bueno has remained true to its core values and beliefs that center around making people's lives better through jobs and opportunity, and contributing to the community. Bueno donates part of its profits to charities and scholarships, and every Christmas helps to provide food and clothing to the needy. As Bueno Foods turns 50, it is celebrating its golden anniversary in a way that continues to epitomize those values. The company has teamed up with several organizations to host a 4-day fiesta for the South Valley's Barelas community, where the Bacas were born and started their small business. My congratulations go to Bueno Foods president, Jacqueline Baca, the other members of the Baca family who continue the legacy of the Baca brothers, and all their employees. I encourage my colleagues to join me in saluting this company's success and its commitment to the Hispanic entrepreneurial and community spirit.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator wants 5 minutes. And then Senator Nickles wants 5 minutes. I yield to them in that order.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Frist is going to come down and wants to use a little time. Would you please instruct me when I am down to 15 minutes remaining. I hope not to use that. I first want to say to the distinguished new Senator, Mr. Dayton, that I listened carefully to his remarks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But we have not given a carte blanche to the Defense Department of the United States. We were confronted with a very interesting situation. One, the President asked for a low number for defense, with the assumption in this budget that his task force, headed by the Secretary, his top-to- bottom review, could not come up with the answers of what we needed by way of change by the time we were doing this work. What would one do? Would one shut all of that out and say whatever it is when that task force is finished, they can wait until next year? We allocated to the appropriators the amount of money the President asked for in defense--a low number. Then we said if and when the task force is finished--and we are still in this year--whatever the task force recommends in changes we will put in the defense pot allocated in this budget. But it would have to be appropriated by the Congress of the United States item by item, line by line, and system by system. You might say that is an open door for defense with no controls. You said subject to no congressional controls. I don't believe that is the case. What I just described is true. And is that without congressional concurrence? I think not. I don't know any other way we could have done it. We could have said we will produce a new budget with a new defense number and debated that thoroughly and then came back, and we would have had the year behind us before we could have done anything. Guess what. They would come along and appropriate for defense and say: Too late. It has taken too long. We are putting it in, in excess of the budget. We are trying to have a little common sense on defense. In my closing remarks, I will allude to some other aspects, but a lot has been said about spending. Is there enough in this budget for the appropriators to spend? Let me suggest it is pretty clear that there are many who would accept a much higher number. But I want to tell you the numbers as they are. It is $31.3 billion above the 2001 budget available to be appropriated. Take out all of the things that are not spending and just do apples and apples. It is $31.3 billion. Of that number, $6.2 billion is new money over and above the President's budget. That means you have what the President recommended, plus $6.2 billion more, which gives you $31.3 billion over last year to spend. This $661.3 billion, which is the number, is real money. It will be sent to the appropriators to be spent. With that figure, we assume-- and that is all we can do--that $44.5 billion of it will go to the Department of Education for the year 2002. We assume--and that is all we can do--that there will be an 11.5-percent increase. This is new money. Nobody can say that 11.5 percent isn't well above inflation. What kind of money are we talking about in the 4.6? The highest ever level of funding for education of disabled children, a $460 billion increase in title I, including a 78-percent increase in assistance to low-performing schools; a $1 billion increase in Pell grants; $1 billion for new reading programs; $320 billion to ensure accountability with State assessments. We can go on. There is $472 million to encourage schoolchildren, some kind of innovative choice that we might pass; $6.3 billion to serve 916,000 Head Start children. I guess it is easy to stand up and say there is nothing in this budget for education. I just read it to you. Actually, the appropriators will probably do more because we gave them more to spend, and they have always favored more money for education. So, frankly, whatever we have heard rhetorically on the floor about education, we have done better by education than we have in modern times. This is the highest, most dedicated budget for education that we have ever produced. I note the presence of the Senator from Tennessee. Would the Senator like to speak to the matter before us?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought the distinguished Senator, my ranking member, was going to yield to somebody on his side before he and I used our final time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux for his assessment of where things are. I think he included in his remarks that there is still a contingency fund of $500 billion. For those who think we ought to do other things and that we have to, that is still in this budget. I think what Senator Breaux said about the appropriated account is right on the money. We don't know where the appropriators are going to put the money, no matter what we say in this Chamber. But there is a $31 billion increase year over year, and $6.2 billion more than the President asked for, if you really are talking apples and apples and the money to be spent by the appropriators. I think Senator Breaux summarized that just about right. I thank him for his support. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Am I correct now, there is no time remaining on the other side and I have how many minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. So our fellow Senators ought to know, we are going to finish in a timely manner and the vote will be sometime after 11:30. First, I thank all the wonderful staff on both sides of this budget battle. Much more work goes into this than anybody thinks. In particular, I say to Bill Hoagland, the staff director on our side, and to his staff, thank you so much for all you have done. It has been a great effort. Mr. President, fellow Senators, those who are listening, this is a budget for prosperity now and prosperity in the future, plain and simple. It is the largest commitment of money for education in our Nation's history. I will go into some details on that momentarily. It keeps our word. Social Security and Medicare are not touched. Their funds are not used. I know that Senator Byrd said today on the floor that when your mother calls you--implying on Mother's Day--tell her that the Social Security trust fund is being raided, and whatever else he said we should be responding to our mothers on Mother's Day. I have another response. My mother is not alive. But if she were to call me, I would say: Your Social Security is intact and fully protected. Medicare is fully protected. But also, mother, there is $300 billion in this budget for prescription drugs and reform of the Medicare program--$300 billion. The House wanted only $146 billion. There is $300 billion to get started on the program. There is $300 billion that can be used. I say, in addition to my mother, that this budget is good for me, one of your children, and for the other three children, and for the grandchildren, six of whom are working. I am just describing a family. Do you know that it is good for them, mother? Because we are going to give them back some of their hard-earned tax money. You know they are hurting because of gas prices. They are hurting because of electric bills. Everybody is working on some way to fix that. But wouldn't it be nice if, in fact, your sons and daughters and grandchildren this year and next year got a very significant tax reduction? Frankly, I could go on and on as to what this budget does. But let me suggest that to bring into this debate the subject of Social Security and Medicare is just another part of the same old argument. Whenever tax cuts for the American people are close at hand and we are going to do something for them, every argument in the world that can be invented from a budget standpoint is offered in opposition. It is a wonder that the American people ever get a tax cut; we have our minds on so many things that we can do with that money. But we decided today to take about 25 percent of the surplus--it sounds like we are using all of it--about 25 or 26 percent, and give it back to the Americans in an orderly way for such things as child credits, marriage tax penalty, which everybody knows should be done, and marginal rate reductions with bigger cuts at the bottom end than at the top end. I don't know what else we can do. I believe we have done everything in this budget that you can do in a rational way to make sure that the surplus is handled in a proper manner and that it is there to have the right things feed on it, use it, and get money out of that surplus for things we must have. I have already disagreed with my friend on the other side. But I don't disagree from the standpoint of his hard work, his own views, and his own opinions. I would not be asking people to vote for a budget resolution that touched the Social Security trust fund. I wouldn't be asking them to vote for one that touched Medicare because it does not. But neither would I ask them to vote for a budget resolution that some would want that would spend all the money instead of having any of it for the taxpayers of America. We have heard all kinds of ideas of what should be in this budget. If anybody is adding it up and listening to us, I guess you would conclude that the Government of the United States is going to take care of every problem in the United States, and if we just didn't gave the taxpayers back any money, we would be out there solving all of them. We know that isn't true. This budget is an increase over last year. In fact, I know that the House and the Senate would do it in their own way. I see the chairman of the House Budget Committee. I want to tell the Senate that I believe on the nondiscretionary side of this budget there is a little bit more than 5 percent over last year they can spend. The House started at 4; the President started at 4. That is $6.2 billion more we have for education and other things of significance. I want to close my remarks where I started. This budget is for prosperity. Now, because it has $100 billion that will go back to the American taxpayers in these next 2 years, this one and the next, and it is a budget for the future because for America to prosper we have to have low taxes and low tax rates. It has been our history that we compete not through government but through innovation, and through people investing their money, time, talents, and working hard. If you have high taxes, you get less of those things in an economy. That is just it. Senator Nickles also told us about how much we are paying in taxes as a group of people, as Americans. It is very high. We are going to reduce it a little bit--not very much; $1.25 billion over ten years is not very much. In fact, when you look at that as part of the total tax take, what we are going to give back to the American people is rather insignificant. I close by saying to everyone here: This is your chance today but not the last chance because there is a $500 billion surplus remaining. But this is your chance to say to the American people before we spend all of your tax money that isn't needed, we are going to give you a little bit of it to be used as you see fit because we trust you. Not only do we trust you, but we think the less you are taxed, the harder you work, and the more you will invest in your life, in productivity, in growth and doing things, and the more you will sit around the family table saying what you can do with your money instead of saying the Government is taking so much of your money. In conclusion, this has been as tough as it comes. I have been at budgeting for many years. It is tough because there are people on both sides of the aisle, in the White House, and in the House of Representatives, who have their own opinions and nothing was going to change anybody's opinion. A lot of opinions have been changed. There have been many compromises, which is what we have to do to get our work done. This compromise package is the best we can do this year. I believe it is good for our future. I believe the American people, in about 6 months, will say it is a very good budget. And, yes, I believe those wondering where the education money is coming from will be very happy. There will be over an 11-percent or perhaps as much as a 12- percent increase in education with some highlighted at higher increases than that. I think that is what we ought to be doing. The highest priority on the domestic side is education. I want to say to President Bush, you didn't get everything you wanted, Mr. President, but I want to compliment you because you have made us change direction. You have moved us in the direction of giving back taxes to the American people rather than giving them the last cut after the debt. They are going to get some of those taxes back now, next year, and the year after. That is a new direction. Mr. President, you ought to be proud of it. We will implement it in due course, and, frankly, I think that we will all say this was a job well done, as hard as it was. I close by saying if we don't want to do this now, when will we do it? How much more surplus will we have to have? I believe we have enough surplus that we should leave part of it in the hands of the taxpayers. I yield such time as I might have.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank everyone who participated in this debate. I believe we have a good product and now we will implement it over the next year. Once again, I thank everybody who participated on both sides of the aisle. We have a good product. Now everybody can begin to implement it. It means different things to different people, but in the end, it is pretty clear we are going to have a significant tax reduction plan in place. Let's hope, as we work through it, we will get some of the other things that most of us believe are in this budget resolution and see if we can carry them out in the ensuing months. I thank the ranking member on the Budget Committee for the way he conducted himself, the information he put together, and the knowledge he has obtained. It has been a pleasure working with him. I thank him very much.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say to Senator Byrd, I was not here but I would not have agreed to that just because we have plenty of time, 5 hours on each side. But I will not object.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Joined by Dr. Alan Greenspan, saying that is the best thing for the American economy. I thank the Senator and yield the floor. What would the Senator like to do next?