Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield to me for a moment, and I understand the ranking member wants to speak. What I have here is also a peekaboo budget, but it is not President Bush's, it is President Clinton's. It is a peekaboo budget, borrowing your expression. It is ``A Vision of Change for America,'' but it is not a budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. This was sent up here on February 17, and in a marvelous show of support for the new President, before any budget was forthcoming, a budget resolution was adopted based on this peekaboo budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. It went to conference for him, and it came back as a conferred-upon bill. So we are kind of used to looking at what you all do, and then when you are doing something really borderline spectacular, we say we would like to be a mimic. You did it in such a great fashion for him, we wanted to do a little bit for President Bush.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, it was.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it did.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I tried to explain the difference. You had the luxury of a majority here in the Senate. In fact, you had three votes more than a majority. We went in the Budget Committee not even stephen. Everybody already made up their minds. You had a majority of Democrats willing to vote out a Presidential budget when Republicans didn't want it. So it is the same thing I had, except it turns out 11-11, an equal number. So there is a very big difference.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is going to go next. I did not want to keep burdening Senator Byrd with my statements. He has made his. I want to make mine. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the introduction of the President's revenue proposals by the Joint Committee on Taxation, March 8, 1993.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is the Joint Committee's introduction on President Clinton's tax package that was considered, voted on, passed, went to conference with the House and passed, and this is all they could say about what the President submitted: The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year 1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be comprehensive. Numerous details, such as . . . limitation of tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals, will be provided in-- And it goes on. I want everybody to know, according to the tax Web site, no tax revenue tables were available with reference to President Clinton's budget until way past the time the budget resolution was considered. As a matter of fact, the first tax tables were not made available to the Ways and Means Committee until May 4 of 1993, the second tables on June 17, 1993, and we had already produced the budget resolution in both Houses, gone to conference, and adopted it. I do not care to go on forever. I believe we ought to treat President Bush, as well as Republicans and Members of the Senate, as President Clinton was treated when he was a so-called brand new President. We will proceed, and I want the Record to show, and I will put the letter in tomorrow, that every member of the Budget Committee on the Republican side asked the chairman, this chairman, not to consider markup because they said it would not yield any fruitful results. While that is my decision, I want everybody to know I did not make it singularly. I had a pretty good backing from Republicans who did not think it would amount to anything other than long, protracted debates and nothing positive would be accomplished. Before we proceed and I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, I was asked by the majority leader to propose what I assume is a usual consent request.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hutchinson has been waiting. Can I give him 3 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will wrap up. I thank Senator Grassley for taking the lead on this issue. Clearly, I thank Senator Zell Miller for being the prime cosponsor. For all those in the Senate who want a practical, responsible addition to the farm surplus, the farm program moneys over the next 10 years, this is the right amendment. Let me make sure everybody understands right off the bat there is one very big distinction, and that is, once again, in order to spend more on a program, the other side of the aisle would take it out of the $1.6 trillion tax cut that is planned in this budget resolution. If we start down that road for each major amendment, the way we fund it is to take money out of what the people were going to get in tax cuts, then Katie bar the door. Where do we end up? Enough said about that. That is a very big difference. We do not take this money to pay for this program, the Grassley-Miller amendment, out of the tax cuts that are going to the American people. Essentially this program will cost $59 billion over the decade, with about $5 billion of it going into this year and the balance going into the remaining 10 years. It sends the money to the function called agriculture, wherein it awaits a farm bill that has that much latitude without taking money from any other parts of the budget or becoming subject to a point of order. Is that enough? According to the experts we have who put this together, clearly if you are going to put together something practical, pragmatic, not trying to get more than you need, not trying to push other things out but, rather, recognizing agriculture's appropriate place among myriad very important programs, then this is a good amendment. Clearly, the $63.5 billion that is in this bill, including the first year--the year we are in--you add it to the base in this budget and the supports for agriculture amount to--let me repeat this number--$157 billion. That is the kind of support that comes from distinguished Senators who know agriculture, such as Senator Grassley and Senator Miller. You know, enough is enough. The other side would have us spend $97 billion over that same period of time. I submit for all Senators to consider, that is just more than enough. That is sort of asking all the rest of the American taxpayers and all of those expecting to get a tax cut--that is saying to them, all of your claims are second rate to an exorbitant agricultural bill. I say that because I depend upon people such as Chuck Grassley, from an agricultural State, still a farmer, who understands all of these issues intimately. He submits this measure to the Senate as rational, reasonable, and enough money to be sent to the Agriculture Committee upon which a new agricultural bill can be drawn. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 93, the adjournment resolution and that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. In drafting the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002, we have assumed that the historic pay parity between civilian and military employees will be maintained, and that the President's proposed 4.6 percent raise for military personnel will be similarly provided to all Federal workers next year.

Mr. DOMENICI. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the Senator from Maryland know, the Budget Committee has included language assuming parity between the raises granted to Federal employees and members of the armed services in the Committee Report on the Budget Resolution for the past 2 years.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Judiciary Committee's views and estimates letter from Senator Hatch.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, so there will be no confusion, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, has an amendment that makes the money available when the committee of jurisdiction reports back that the repeal has been accomplished. It is a real amendment. It is precisely what would have to happen--and the Senator is saying that it should happen--in order to repeal that statute about which the Senator is talking. I do not want anybody to think the Senator offered an amendment that does not accomplish her purpose. She has been talking about this problem for a long time. If the Senator had offered an amendment that was not meaningful, that did not get the job done, we would have already fixed the amendment. We would have looked at it first. It is a real amendment. It is the real way to do it. I thank the Senator from Maine for her persistence and for the amendment which we will vote on tomorrow.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, there will be no further votes tonight. The next votes will occur in stacked sequence at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Has the Chair ruled?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, whatever time Senator Specter had I yield back.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on behalf of Senator Specter.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased, if the other side agrees, to make it in order that the Senator offer it, but we have to use up the time on the amendment before it would be in order under current practice. It is in their hands. I would be glad to let you send it up so people could see it. It would not be ripe until all time were yielded on the amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, from what I understand, we don't want to deny her a vote. We want a vote on his first. Whatever happens to it, you get a vote. But we will have a vote on it first. Is my understanding correct? Before I do that, if we could proceed and let me make an inquiry. It looks as if that is what we ought to agree to. For now, let us proceed in the normal course.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending Landrieu amendment be laid aside and Senator Warner be recognized to offer an amendment relative to defense. I further ask the debate run concurrently on both first-degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and following that time the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment and then in relation to the Warner amendment. I further ask consent no amendments be in order prior to the votes just described and the votes occur in a stacked sequence with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.