Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously I have on numerous occasions in the Senate Chamber discussed these issues, and on many of them I disagree with my friend. On some I agree. I certainly appreciate his thoughts as to what kind of conference report we will have to have in order for it to pass. He suggests it will have to be close to the Senate version. I don't know how anyone expects the House to accept something like the version passed in the Senate. Nonetheless, we will proceed. We will work carefully to make sure we have enough people in the Senate willing to vote on final passage. I certainly don't go there operating on the premise discussed with the ranking member on how to get that done. We have to be careful and accept some of the Senate wishes. We certainly don't have to accept them all. I will go back in history for a moment. The Presiding Officer is a member of the committee and will probably recall on January 23 Dr. Alan Greenspan appeared before the committee. That was the first testimony before a committee by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, during this post-December era, where some serious changes in the American economy became very public and notorious. I have confidence that Alan Greenspan is correct in suggesting the ``new'' economy is here to stay and the comeback will be in the new economy along with the old economy. The future is built on the new economy which took us through these years of prosperity and which he assumes will come back in due course and lead us to prosperity for a very significant period to come. In this budget, we have to decide how we can be helpful. The Federal Reserve Board seems, to this Senator, to be doing everything it can to reduce short-term high interest rates. That is very important. It is important because it is also affecting long-term rates. Money is being made available. What is thought to be the biggest problem is investment, capital investments by business--both the new economy businesses and the old economy businesses. It is thought by some that perhaps the new economy has too much inventory around to invest in new capital and new production. We will see. We keep abreast of it as best we can. Now, what should we do? The Senate had a vote on a Hollings amendment. I am not sure we can come out of the House with $85 billion from this year's surplus because I am not sure they can figure out a way to get that to the people. I submit we ought to get this conference completed; we ought to direct the Finance Committee to start with a tax cut plan. Obviously, I don't know from where that will come. We are, under our numbers, the way we figure it, at a tax level of 1.28. I round that to say 1.3. Every time I say 1.3, I hope everyone knows the exact number is 1.28. The House is a little higher than 1.6 in total taxes for a 10-year period. They don't have very much allowed for this year, the year we are in, in which we have a very large surplus for the rest of Government. It does not take anything out of Social Security or Medicare. What ought to happen is we ought to get out of this conference quickly, resolve that tax issue, resolve some of the other issues where clearly we disagree, and then we ought to prove to the American people that we can get something done. I think getting something done means a tax bill that will come out of the Finance Committee under our reconciliation instructions, which we debated thoroughly and the Senate decided to do that by a 51-49 vote. We decided our committee would work under the expedited process and get us a tax bill. I am very hopeful they will find a way to allocate back to the American people as much of the surplus that exists for the year 2001-- which we said in our Senate resolution was up to $85 billion, which actually in the resolution I introduced we said up to $60 billion--but somewhere in that area. I hope they will find a way. I hope they will apply their wills to finding a way to get back in circulation somewhere between $60 billion and $85 billion, meaning this year Americans will get some tax money back in their hands. I do not hear anybody who thinks that is anything but the right thing to do. We ought to show the American people we are working in harmony with the Federal Reserve Board to affect the current short-term problems in the economy, hoping if we right them, and if there is a way, that will bring into play a long-term growth all of us very much desire for our people. In addition, with that same bill under the expedited process--kind of the hurry-up-and-get-it-done process to show Americans you can do it in a timely manner, the part which is called reconciliation--I hope we will produce a tax bill for the remainder of whatever we agree upon. In the House they say $1.6 trillion over 11 years. We say $1.3 trillion over 11 years. Whatever the number, I hope they do the early stimulus as I have described and then proceed to give us some marginal rate reductions. Why did I start with Dr. Alan Greenspan? Because I want to close with him. This year, on January 23, and previously to this on two occasions, addressing the issue of surplus and what we should do with it, he said: You should pay the debt down as much as possible, No. 1; No. 2, he did not just say cut taxes, he said reduce or cut marginal tax rates. We asked him, How do we help the economy? That was the precursor question to the answer I just gave. First, pay down the debt as much as possible. Second, reduce or cut marginal tax rates. I know a lot of people say: Let's help the economy. But then they say: I don't know about this marginal rate business. We would like to do other things. It would be nice to do other things, but the truth of the matter is we are hearing from the very best that if you do have a surplus that you are going to give back to the people, and you are not in a mode of doing right-now stimulus because we already addressed that issue, do that as much as you can, the answer has been: To help the economy, reduce marginal rates. I regret to say what was not said was reduce marginal rates for halfway up the tax structure and not the other half. What has been said is reduce the marginal rates. We hope when we are finished under this expedited feature we will get an early stimulus and we will get a bill that helps with the long-term economy in the mode and manner discussed by Dr. Greenspan every year for the last three when we addressed surpluses. I do not choose today to get into an argument about how much debt reduction is the right amount. My good friend thinks we should have more than we voted in in the Senate, we should have more than I provided in the underlying proposal, and more than the President suggested. But we think we have a very good debt reduction proposal and still can have a good number for tax cuts. We believe when you start with debts--the U.S. Government has debts taking about 17 percent of the budget--and we can say to the public at the end of this time it will be down to between 5 percent and 7 percent, we think we are making a giant stride in reducing the public debt. I have in my mind showing a pie graph of where the Government money goes. People always say: Why so much to the debt? Because we have a lot of debt. How much are you going to reduce it? We are going to reduce it down to where that sliver, that piece, is going to be between 5 percent and 7 percent; that is going to be the cost remaining. In my opinion that is exactly what we ought to do. I want to close with one thought. Frankly, I hear the ranking member from the other side, whom I admire and respect, I hear him talking about whether we want to agree and believe that we have the surplus of $5.6 trillion over a decade. I want to remind everybody, when the chips are down and you have sitting before you in the committee those who have figured the numbers and the variables on what might be the case, when you finally ask them which is it going to be, the $11 trillion that it might be or the $1.6 trillion that it might be or the $5.6 trillion--that 50 percent or 75 percent, I think, where the lines end up when you do a model and ask them--if you have to decide which one is right the answer is, use $5.6 trillion. We can do anything we would like. We could use $2 trillion as the starting point and say that is all we can expect. Some might say, instead of $5.6 trillion, you ought to use $7.5 trillion or $8 trillion because it could be much higher. I think the number that has been chosen, $5.6 trillion, from which you will pay Medicare for sure, from which you will pay for all the Social Security indebtedness that we have--every penny that belongs in that trust fund is used to pay that debt down--when you end up doing that, I think you have a very balanced package and that leaves open the issue of how much do we spend. Those who are interested have seen the divergence of how we spend, how we spend under what I will call the Democratic proposal, how we would do it under the Domenici proposal, and how we would do that under the proposal that passed the Senate. Clearly, in the Senate, many amendments were accepted on the side of either entitlements or appropriation expectations--the amount we can use in appropriations. Many were accepted on the floor and nobody should believe we are going to take all of those and accept them all in a conference with the House which has started with the President's number. There has to be some give and some take. I think that will happen. I look forward to chairing the conference in a spirit of getting it done as quickly as we can so we can get on with passing the bills that will carry it out and stopping as quickly as we can the debate of what we ought to do and get into a mode of what we are going to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time we have reserved under the previous order.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say. I do not think there is anyone on our side who wishes to speak. If the Senator is ready, we can yield back our time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of April 6 with respect to conferees to the budget resolution be modified to add Senator Bond and Senator Murray.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is good to be back in the Chamber. I don't think we are going to take all of the 4 hours, from what I understand, unless somebody wants to join us. I have two unanimous consent requests, both of which the Senator from North Dakota is aware, and then I will proceed with a few remarks. It won't be much. Then I will yield, unless he prompts me to give a 2-hour speech, and we will be out.

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the two Senators from Ohio for their interest and hard work in this important issue. This is a matter that impacts a number of states that are home to civilian employees of the Defense Department, including New Mexico. I know my colleagues from Ohio have been working on this issue for several years, and I agree that something needs to be done. As this budget resolution assumes the President's budget, if the President's budget accommodates the direct spending necessary for this program, then the Senators from Ohio can assume that this budget resolution accommodates this program. So, the Senators from Ohio can be sure that if this matter is addressed in the President's budget, I will work with them to be sure that the final budget resolution we will work out with the House will assume all the increases and new programs in the President's budget for important programs, such as this one.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. This amendment has to do with energy research. We have nothing further to say on the amendment. It is acceptable on our side.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I ask that amendment No. 325 be called up.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 246 be called up.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the final amendments to the budget resolution. There will be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote on any of the amendments proposed. There are, for the information of Senators, between 30 and 40 amendments to be considered during today's session. We are working with Senators on both sides to see which amendments can be accepted, which will require rollcall votes, and perhaps which we will not be required to take action on at all. Senators should be aware that all votes after the first vote will be limited to 10 minutes. Therefore, Members should stay in the Chamber if possible between votes. We are working to vote on final passage by 2:30 or 3 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest we have three or four Senators we want to talk with on the phone. We may significantly change our numbers. We do not have anything like those--we are one-third of your number or one-fourth. I believe we ought to proceed. I believe Senator Bond is ready on our side with a second-degree.

Mr. DOMENICI. We are ready to go. We will get an amendment up and be ready to go.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed in the following manner: No amendment be in order to these amendments prior to the vote; that the votes occur in relation to these amendments in a stacked sequence; first, in relationship to the Wellstone amendment and then in relation to Senator Bond's amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. We are ready to proceed with amendment No. 284, the Enzi-Carper amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no amendments in order to the Enzi amendment, No. 284.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Gramm asked to address this issue for 30 seconds, and I ask unanimous consent he be permitted.

Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pleasure of the Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?