Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have just been informed the pages would like us to spend a few more minutes. Somebody is blushing, but that is the truth. Something very nice happens to them in 5 minutes that won't happen to them if we close up now.

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to speak for 2\1/2\ minutes of it and the Senator from North Dakota can speak for 2\1/2\ minutes of it, or we can have a quorum call. People have heard enough of us. First, those listening, stay tuned tomorrow and we will tell you how President Clinton figured out that he could say he was saving Social Security but then had a long time to pay for it. Just think. You remember, he had a 15-year budget once. Tomorrow, we will tell you what he was up to when he did that. It is most interesting. He can spend more and still claim Social Security is being taken care of because he did it in 15-year intervals instead of 10. That is all I am going to say. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Richard Greenough, a detailee from the Department of Justice working with the staff of the Budget Committee during consideration of this resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jenny Winkler and Cheri Reidy be granted the privilege of the floor, as well as Jim Horney and Sue Nelson from the other side.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. OK. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, I want to ask if there are any Senators who want to speak. I don't want anyone to think our schedule is going to be in any way influenced by the NCAA finals. But it does seem as though, if we got out of here by 9 o'clock, we could all participate in the game someplace. I think it is 15 minutes after that it starts. We are going to shoot for that anyway. If Senators come down later than that, we will let them close down. We wouldn't want you, Mr. President, to occupy the chair that late. We have a volunteer, I think, willing to do that. First, I want to say to everybody listening that in an effort to try to see where we were with this big surplus, we invited a lot of people to testify. At the suggestion of the other side, we invited the Comptroller General. He is a former CPA of some significant firm--one of the big firms. He loves to inject himself in the budget issues. And he does that with a great deal of enthusiasm. Sometimes I wonder if that is in his charter. Nonetheless, we hear from him. I want everybody to listen carefully to what he said. He was talking about the debt in the future. He was not talking about 10 years from now. He wasn't talking about 20 years from now. He was talking about the debt 25, 35, and 50 years from now; that is, we don't have all of these programs paid for during that period of time. So I asked him: We have been hearing words of caution about this surplus. But, Mr. Comptroller, does the $1.6 trillion the President is talking about in a tax cut have any negative impact on that debt? He answered, Absolutely not. So you see that you can come to the floor and do what my friend has done, and talk about having all of this money in for future debt. To tell you the truth, the President's number on a tax cut will have no negative impact on that. I conclude that it will have a positive impact because I will tell you right now what will have the biggest positive effect on assuring every single senior that they will get their Social Security for as long as we have the ability to project that, and, for everybody who is worried about Medicare and its solvency, I tell you the best way to make sure that it works. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we plug into this budget for Medicare. Do you know what it is? Will the $1.6 trillion tax cut promote longer prosperity at higher rates of growth than if we don't do it? Americans, if you are wondering what is going to make Social Security more and more solvent, it is, the sooner we get out of this dip in the economy and the sooner we go for 8 or 9 more years with sustained growth at a modest rate as predicted in this budget, the better off everyone will be. Frankly, I believe that I have been listening. I have gotten a great education, I tell my New Mexicans all the time, by listening to the greatest economists--those who have more to do with the future of the American economy year by year--by listening to them. The one to whom I have listened tentatively is Dr. Alan Greenspan. Let me say about our new President, President George W. Bush, whether you talk to him or not, he listens. You get some waves from him as to what you should do with a surplus. I can't quote him, but let me paraphrase him accurately. He said: If you have a very large surplus--and he was amazed that it was as big as $5.6 trillion, but he concurs that it is, under current projections--which he also concurs is a modest projection and not some blue-sky projection. But he says: If you have a surplus and it is big, pay the debt down. And then, when you have done as much of that as you consider the next priority for government, you cut marginal rates. Why was he saying that? Was he saying that because he just wants to cut marginal rates? And Alan Greenspan doesn't think that every rate should get a cut, as our good friend from Texas explained. Of course not. It is because that is the very best thing for the American economy. That is the best thing for the future of our senior citizens and for Medicare. Yes. Even for that long-term debt that is out there, and even for some of that gross national debt, which our friend puts up on a map on one of his charts as if we were busy paying off that gross debt. It isn't even considered in the unified budget when the economists look at America for the next 10, 15, 20 years. The point is: The recommendation is that you pay debt as the first priority, and the second highest priority with the surplus is to cut marginal rates. Guess what. The third and least priority is to spend the surplus. That is not Senator Pete Domenici. That is what I have learned from experts, including the expert who tells us what is best for America. That means Americans; that means families; that means everybody who is concerned about paying their mortgage or adding on to their house--all of these things--plus businesspeople who are making money at their businesses. They are highly motivated by what they get to keep. That is why all the experts say the second highest priority with the surplus is to cut marginal rates. I am not going to spend tonight talking about how much is the right amount to pay on the debt. I will just tell you that for those who worry about what portion of our budget is interest on the national debt, let me guess with you. I have it on the chart up there. But currently it is about 13.5 to 14 percent. So every budget has a big slice of it--13 to 14 percent to pay down the debt as a percentage of the total budget. It is as if we don't plan to do anything about it, if you listen to the other side. Do you know what it will be after 10 years of paying down the debt as we contemplate it percentage-wise? Three. It will be 14 percent of the Federal budget down to 3 or 3\1/2\. When people say we are not paying down the debt and you show them that chart, is this paying down the debt fast enough? Everybody says, of course, that is paying it down fast enough. If you want to be technical, bring in two experts and ask if we could pay it down faster. You will find two who will say we can. But to tell you the truth, I have almost become convinced that it is not the right thing for me to say as a noneconomist--or maybe it is for a noneconomist. I almost believe the surplus can get too big. I think it can be a drag on the growth in the economy. I believe to pay it down any faster than we propose is very risky. I really believe that is plenty of debt payment for this generation and this little timeframe to be paying on a debt which has accumulated over 25 years or maybe 40 years. It is just a lot to take out of the economy. So everyone will know how much debt we should pay down, we had a witness. He is a very excellent economist. He said none. He didn't say they are right or you are right. He said you are both wrong. Don't pay any of it down. Because he is very worried about a slowing of the economy and paying the debt down and what happens. I am not saying that. I am just giving you parameters of what we heard. We had another prominent witness from the Treasury Department of Bill Clinton saying we should cut it down more. Guess what. He was in the Treasury Department. They produced a budget. President Clinton produced a budget and didn't even ask him. They put in their budget precisely the numbers that George W. Bush is using in his budget for debt payment. All the talk we hear: Is it enough? Is it too small? Should it be bigger? We are talking about the end of this 10 years, and we are talking about $300 billion to $400 billion at the tail end of this entire process. I want to close by saying again to my fellow Republicans and to anyone on the other side who wants to treat George W. Bush fairly, to treat him as the Democrats treated President Clinton, why don't you let the President have a trial, have an opportunity, have a chance at taking his budget to the next level? Let's work on tax cuts, and see where the American people are when we get down to the details of tax cuts. I believe he deserves that. If this Senator were frightened about this budget bringing us back to deficit spending, I would be here saying we just should not do it. I have been fighting too long to get where we are. But I honestly believe there is a higher chance that we will have a bigger surplus than is reported than we will have a lower amount. I think the highest probability is that it will be about right. When you see that funnel up there on that graph that my good friend offered--it came from the Congressional Budget Office, so I can speak to it also; it looked like a big wave of bees--if you look at it carefully, right down the middle is where it is all dark, and that is where it is turning up most of the time, and that is this surplus of $5.6 trillion. On the edges it is showing a lot less and a lot more. I ask, which one should you use? The huge amount less or the huge amount more? No. I think you should use what the Congressional Budget Office recommended, and you should apply the President's number to that, and I believe you will have something very significant happen when the American people understand that over a decade we are giving them back their money. They will begin to ask, If we don't do that, what is going to happen to that surplus? Do you know what I think is going to happen to it? I think it is going to get spent. I think it is going to get spent. I do not know how yet, but it will get spent. Every year we will have an excuse, just about like the amendments that are going to be offered to the Bush budget tomorrow and the next day, where there will be some new purpose that we should add to it well beyond what he recommended. But in the end, fellow Senators and those listening, those are all using the surplus to spend more money instead of giving the taxpayer a break. If we want to spend money, spend what is left over. There is still a lot left over. I ask my friend, what is your desire regarding the rest of the evening?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator used 15 more than I. I yield him that. Then we will yield back to the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I forgot when I yielded, I should have asked how much time was needed. I should establish an amount of time. Does the Senator need 10 more minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budget Committee staff named on the following list be permitted to remain on the floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 101 and that the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. May I interrupt?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when my friend gets up and puts up a chart that says the President is going to have to spend all these things on taxes, even though he didn't ask for them--he put up a number and said: They are going to have to spend money on the alternative minimum tax. Frankly, he put a big dollar number there. I want everybody to know, that is a very wonderful thought on his part, but the truth is, the budget resolution does not say that you do whatever you want on taxes. It says $1.6 trillion. If he wants to surmise that they are going to break this budget and have more tax cuts than that, then he ought to clearly say that because if there is going to be an alternative minimum change, they are going to make it within this $1.6 trillion because that is all that is allowed in this budget resolution. Frankly, a very large chunk of that is estimated to be for one of the three purposes; that is, either the marriage tax penalty or doubling the child care credit or the death tax repeal. Those could all be adjusted, any of the three could be adjusted, in terms of how much they are going to cost. We are using a number. Actually, the Finance Committee can decide how to change those, and there may be money left over when they have finished doing that. Just so the people understand, we are looking at 1.6, not 1.9, not 2.2 trillion. We are looking at 1.6. My last observation is, my good friend says there is going to be more investment under their plan, and then he says there is $700 billion that is going to be used for investment purposes on individual accounts under Social Security. I don't know what we are going to do with it between now and the time that such a plan evolves. I am not sure it is in the wings that we are going to change Social Security to do that. Just wait until we talk here about investing it in the stock market, which is probably the only way we are going to do it. Are we going to do that in the next 6 months or the next 2 years? In the meantime, what is all that money going to be used for under their budget? I don't know. I assume it is going to be sitting around. And then what? We are going to buy up private securities with it? What are we going to do with it in the meantime? Maybe my friend can answer that, and maybe it is truly invested. I don't know how it gets invested. My last observation, one more time, is that President Bush deserves an opportunity. To those watching tonight, he has proposed a very reasonable and responsible budget plan. We are only asking that it be permitted to take one step forward and see if the next committees will choose to adopt it and whether the Senate will adopt those bills later. I believe he deserves that. He is the President. He has made a very important proposal. He is telling us precisely why he is doing it. He wants the American people to get a refund now in some way of $60 billion, but he wants to fix the Tax Code where it is more advantageous to investment and growth and prosperity. He is entitled to just that one break on this budget resolution. We will keep working for it, and we will have a lot of Senators on our side. I hope in the end, if they want to make amendments, they will end up voting for the critical essence of this President's approach; that is, the tax plan. If you want to do some other things in this budget, leave his tax plan intact and let's see how it comes out in the end for the American people.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to yield shortly to Senator Gramm. I thank him very much for waiting. But I want to first say to my good friend, I really do appreciate his advocacy. Frankly, it has been a rather exciting year because the Senator is a very good adversary. But I wish we all could strike a word from our vocabulary--``right'' and ``wrong''--because I think we can do better. I say to the Senator, I think you can do better than to say that what we propose is wrong and what you propose is right. Frankly, I do not know that we are talking in absolutes on any of this. We just think we have a better idea than they do. As a matter of fact, I just want to make two points and then I will yield to my friend. This is budget language, but since my friend spoke of, What do you use this Budget Act for? I want to hold it up. This is the act that changed--until it is repealed--the rules of the Senate. This law did that. I defy anyone to read this law and find within it where it says what is major policy and what is minor policy, what size tax cut is OK and what size tax cut is not OK. I do not believe that is what this law says in any page of it. Somebody might interpret something differently than I would interpret it, but I do not believe there is anything in here that justifies saying a policy that our President has suggested, of reducing our taxes by $1.6 trillion over a decade, when total revenues America will receive during that period of time is $27 trillion; when the gross domestic product is about $25 or $26 trillion--who would determine under this law what is appropriate policy and what isn't? We decide. We vote. And if we have the votes, we use reconciliation because this law permits it. We are not violating anything. If we do not have the votes, we do not use it. But I do not choose to brag about the Senate's great institutional prowess of total debate forever, debate until you kill something, and amendments until you run out of breath offering them. That is not what this law says is the prerogative of the Senators anymore; and it has not been for 25 years, as long as we have had this act. It changed that, if you follow it right. And we will decide in the next 3 or 4 days what is following it right and what isn't in terms of interpreting that statute by the votes of this Senate--each and every Member voting the way he or she chooses. Now, finally, I was not able to do the arithmetic of this cursory summary of their budget, but let me say to Americans, if you want to spend more money, that is the budget. From what I can figure, including interest, this is a ``little'' budget; it only adds $500 billion in expenditures to the President's; and with interest it is $700 billion more than the President's. For starters, so everybody will know, what did the President provide? He provided a 4-percent increase each and every year--4 percent. I heard some of the people in the White House say: Who in America would not be satisfied with a 4-percent increase? I was wondering about whether we should do more. I brought a budget down that starts with a 4-percent increase each time. What they are offering in terms of these quick summaries is over and above 4 percent. Of course, we can say each and every neat thing about our Government should double or triple or should be 30 percent more, or who knows what. But I just added up a few in theirs: Defense, 100 percent; education, 80-some percent; agriculture, 80-some percent; Medicare, 160 percent more; energy, 10 percent, veterans, 15 percent. Remember, almost all these programs were increased by the President. And this is more than that. So what does it yield as a final product? Fellow Americans, do you want us to spend the surplus or do you want tax relief where we send you back some of your money? And how much is the right ratio of what we should spend anew on top of the President's budget of 4 percent? How much is enough? And how much should we put there for those who write taxes to say to the American people, we have this surplus because of you? We didn't get it from the sky or manna. We thank the Lord for giving manna once under biblical terms. We didn't get it. We worked hard. That is what happened. That is where this money came from, all this surplus: innovation, change, hard work. So the question is very simple: What do you want to provide for the future out of that surplus? We will take each item one by one later, including the national debt. But for now I yield the floor to Senator Gramm of Texas.

Mr. DOMENICI. OK.

Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator ask for an additional 10 minutes? Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Gramm will return after we have used some time, and I welcome that. I want to speak a little bit and then tomorrow will give more detailed statements, or tonight, when we have more time. This budget does not include the dollars in tax receipts that would be forthcoming if we had ANWR in this budget, as prescribed by the President. That would be an expectation of $1.2 trillion in the third year of this budget. We did not put that in. That does not preclude, nor does it enhance, the passage of ANWR. It just means that in a budget resolution at this point in time, which is very close in votes, we chose not to put it in, and it will be taken up at a later time. Also, President Bush had a 10-year budget that covers 2002, and it is over a 10-year period. He proposed that a portion of the projected $5.6 trillion budget surplus be returned to the American taxpayers in tax relief. We still have that in this budget, but we also have prescribed something he did not have, which is that in this year, 2001, there be made available up to $60 billion of this year's surplus--$60 billion. Tomorrow we will talk in more detail from where that comes. Essentially, believe it or not, it is a surplus that exists right now in the budget of the United States, and we decided that we ought to give some of it to the tax-writing committee to prescribe this year's stimulus of their prescription. We cannot write a tax bill, so the tax- writing committee will determine how. I was very thrilled when I presented this budget to the Republicans in a caucus and almost all were there. For the first time, they saw this budget, and they also saw from me a proposal that we ought to use $60 billion to ``stimulate'' the economy now. They said, to a man and to a woman: Let's do it. Nobody should misunderstand. We did not suggest that day, nor are we suggesting today, that we should adopt a $60 billion stimulus without providing permanent changes in the Tax Code that enhance growth and prosperity. We have said what our President said. He agrees with us on the $60 billion stimulus this year, almost the same day we talked about it, but he said, as we said then and as we say today, it would be foolhardy to adopt a current 1-year stimulus package without reforming the Tax Code so as to provide for more prosperity over a longer period of time. I understand there is a difference between our side and their side on what the tax changes should look like, but I hope even in their proposal on tax reduction, they would cause an improvement in the economy over time by cutting marginal rates; that is, cutting the current point at which you go to the next bracket and pay the next highest amount of the Tax Code. We propose that every bracket, every margin, be given a cut. When the time comes to debate that more fully, we can talk about who is right about what it ought to look like. For now, it does not matter too much what we think because the tax-writing committee is going to end up determining that. I could get up here and tell the taxpayers: Here is a list of the things we want out of the budget resolution, but I want everybody to know, on the tax side, if we said that, all that is binding on the committees of the Congress is the total, $1.6 trillion and the $60 billion surplus for stimulus. They can provide what kind of stimulus. The other side of the aisle will talk about what they like. We will talk about what we like. That is just debate because the Finance Committee, under Senator Grassley's chairmanship in the Senate, will decide what kind of stimulus. They will also decide what kind of tax changes are going to accrue, what can the American taxpayers really get by way of a return of their money. Essentially, that is where we are. I will spend a few minutes on a very interesting word. The word is ``reconciliation.'' My friend, Senator Byrd, is not on the floor. He pronounces it differently. It doesn't matter whether we pronounce it reconciliation as the Senator from New Mexico does or as the Senator from West Virginia does; it is the same animal. So everybody will understand, we decided 25 years ago to change the procedures of the Senate. What do I mean? When we adopted the Budget Act, with the help of a lot of experts, including the best Parliamentarians they could muster to help write it, that Budget Act said if you are going to do a reconciliation instruction, by definition, here is what it means. It means if you do that, you have held that the Senate no longer is bound by a filibuster rule on that bill that comes from reconciliation. You cannot filibuster it. That is a dramatic change in the rules of the Senate. For those who complain about it, when we get a chance to vote on it, what we say to them is, go back and amend the bill that created it. It is already 25 years old. Anybody who wanted to amend it, to take out this authority could have, but it is there. It is there to be used by Republicans and Democrats. How efficient is it and does it work? Yes, indeed. The other side of the aisle adopted the entire Clinton plan on taxes and budget changes in a reconciliation bill to the committees. What else does it do about Senate rules? The Senate rules are very important to this Senator. I understand the institution. It is cherished that we can amend to our heart's content. There is no real limit on amendments--except under the Budget Act. And 25 years ago, we agreed if you have a budget that orders reconciliation, and a bill that comes forth from that, it is not amendable in the ordinary manner. As a matter of fact, it is very narrowly amended. It has been used to increase taxes, obviously. President Clinton increased taxes. It has been used to reduce taxes. In 1997, there was a tax decrease, tax cuts. We used this now famous process of ``reconciliation.'' It is a very important change in the rules of the Senate. It says those reconciliation bills no longer are treated as other bills in the Senate. Just remember, this isn't the first time. We have been using it for 25 years. It changed forever until we repeal that act. We think it is appropriate here. We will have at least an hour's debate on whether it is or is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the time be charged against the resolution, 2\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the budget resolution tomorrow morning. Amendments will be offered during tomorrow's session. Therefore, votes are expected throughout the day and into the evening. Senators are reminded of the time constraints on debate under the Budget Act and encouraged to work with the managers if they intend to offer amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a team of special women who are champions in the eyes of the residents of my home State of New Mexico. I am paying tribute to the University of New Mexico's Lobo Women's Basketball team, which came up one point short of winning the Women's National Invitation Tournament last night. The Ohio State Buckeyes women's team battled the Lady Lobos on their home court, at ``the Pit'' in Albuquerque, one of the most phenomenal basketball sites in the country. There, the Lady Lobos and the Buckeyes wowed the fans with an exciting 62-61 game. Despite the heartbreaking end, the Lobo women had a fantastic year worthy of any trophy and our admiration. This team has helped to move women in this sport forward by leaps and bounds, providing an outstanding example of dedication, talent and hard work for young girls in my State. Their hard work in the NIT tournament builds on a distinguished history of collegiate women's basketball. Back in 1972 President Richard Nixon signed into law title IX, which stated that no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in any educational program or activity that receives federal assistance. That same year, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women held its first women's collegiate basketball championship. Fast forward to the year 2001, where today unprecedented numbers of young girls and women are playing basketball as part of their overall education. I believe it is outstanding that the UNM Lady Lobos are able to repeatedly played before a sold out audience of more than 18,000 screaming fans. Wednesday night's title game should not be viewed as a disappointment, because I believe the excitement the Lady Lobos generated across New Mexico can only serve as motivation for next year. The Lobo women, who finished the season 22-13, are also an inspiration for the elementary, middle and high school girls who watched their successful season. They can believe, like the UNM Ladies basketball team's future, that the sky is the limit. I believe the Lady Lobos have embarked on a tradition of greatness, which is no small feat considering their newness on the scene. Despite the discontinuation of the program from 1987 to 1991, the players have since shown us their determination and delivered games of pure excitement. In the last four years, the average game attendance for the UNM women has skyrocketed and kept pace with the best teams across the nation. This is testimony to the interest that this women's team has brought to the game. On behalf of thousands of admiring fans, I extend my congratulations and thanks to the University of New Mexico Lobo Women's Basketball team for their successful year. I salute Coach Don Flanagan and his team: Jordan Adams, Susan Babcock, Jasmine Ewing, Melissa Forest, Cristal Garcia, Chelsea Grear, Nikki Heckroth, Molly McKinnon, Lauren McLeod, Miranda Sanchez, Jennifer Williams, and Brittany Wolfgang. We are proud of the team and its accomplishments.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to imagine the following nightmare: You have spent years in the uranium mines helping to build America's nuclear programs. As a result, you have contracted a debilitating and too often deadly radiation-related disease that has caused severe emotional and physical suffering. Most of life's joys have long since ended. Your only solace is that the government is going to pay you for this suffering. Certainly, the money will never be enough to compensate you for what you've lost, but at least your medical bills will be paid. At least, if you lose this fight your family will be left with money. However, when you open the Justice Department letter that you have long awaited, it reads: I am pleased to inform you that your claim for compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act has been approved. Regretfully, because the money available to pay claims has been exhausted, we are unable to send a compensation payment to you at this time. When Congress provides additional funds, we will contact you to commence the payment process. Thank you for your understanding. Unfortunately, my fellow Senators, this is not a bad dream, but rather the terrible reality for hundreds of uranium miners, federal workers, and downwinders who have contracted these deadly radiation- related diseases. One such individual is Bob Key. Bob Key helped build our nation's nuclear arsenal and end the Cold War through his difficult work as a uranium miner. Little did he know at the time that the uranium was slowly ravaging his body. As a result, Mr. Key has spent many years enduring the grueling pain associated with pulmonary fibrosis, which requires him to be hooked to an oxygen tank for hours on end. Recently, Mr. Key, 61, needed a tracheotomy simply to help him breathe. Yet, despite his enormous suffering, Mr. Key has not received the $100,000 compensation from the government for which he is entitled under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990. Instead, he received a five-line IOU from the Justice Department stating that there was not enough money to indemnify him for his suffering. This is a disgrace. Unfortunately, Mr. Key's horror story is a familiar one for many uranium miners, federal workers, and downwinders from New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. In some cases,the miners have died and their loved ones are left holding nothing but a Justice Department IOU. In 1990, when we passed the Domenici-authored Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, we never envisioned that these miners would receive IOUs. However, the fund is now bankrupt because of expansions in the program and Congress' failure to appropriate enough money. This injustice must be rectified. I rise today to urge my colleagues to remedy this lack of funding. Those who gave so much for our nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is unacceptable. Senator Hatch and I have introduced two bills that will provide full funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. We proposed legislation seeking $84 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to pay those claims that have already been approved as well as the projected number of approved claims for fiscal year 2001. This legislation would also make all future payments for approved claims mandatory. With this legislation, we will ensure that those who gave so much for our nation will at least receive their deserved benefits. We must never again let their sacrifice go unanswered. I again ask my Senate colleagues to help us right this wrong and give these victims their just compensation. I ask unanimous consent that the March 27 New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2001 budget through March 26, 2001. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2001 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 290). The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $33.9 billion in budget authority and by $21.8 billion in outlays. Current level is $14.1 billion above the revenue floor in 2001. Since my last report, dated January 30, 2001, the Congress has taken no action that has changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter and enclosures from the Congressional Budget Office in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is designed to restore some internal consistency to the Tax Code as it applies to art and artists. No one has ever said that the Tax Code is fair even though it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar taxpayers similarly. The bill I am introducing today would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same. Internal inconsistency No. 1 deals with the long term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. Internal inconsistency No. 2 deals with the charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. The unartistic person wishing to make a charitable contribution of a piece of art is entitled to a deduction equal to fair market value of the art. An artist, on the other hand, just because he/she is the creator of the art, is limited to a deduction equal to the tube of paint, the paper, or other art supplies involved. Under this tax treatment few eligible contributions exceed $19.95 even though the art may be worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The tax treatment is a disincentive and a blatant unfairness. If a person invests in stocks, or bonds, holds the asset for the requisite period of time, and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 20 percent, 18 percent if the asset is held for five or more years. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur an additional 40-percent tax bill simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the pocketbook of the beholder. Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy. Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have a diverse colony of artists, collectors and gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E.L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Verl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico. Art, antiques and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and collectible sales range between $500 million and $1 billion a year. Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Keynes was a passionate devotee of painting. Even the artistically inclined economists found it difficult to define art within the context of economic theory. When asked to define Jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized by a set of attributes: Every unit of output is differentiated from every other unit of output. Art works can be copied but not reproduced. The cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of public good. Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth or as a source of speculative capital gain. As chairman of the Budget Committee I pride myself on understanding economics, so I reviewed the literature on ``cultural economics'' to see how the markets have treated the muses. Numerous economists have analyzed rates of return on works of art-- some studies going back as far as 1635. The more recent the study the more favorable art investments compare with the stock market. New Mexico is not only the third largest art market but it is also the home of a unique company that manages the Metropolitan Fine Arts fund which charts the price performance of various categories of collectibles over the past five years. Recently this firm, Lyons and Hannover, compared the S&P 500 with different categories of fine art and collectibles. Had a person invested in American impressionists like Cassatt, Hassam, or Sargent he would have beat the S&P. An investment in 20th century expressionists like Klee or Nolde did not out perform the S&P. Of the other 16 categories most did almost as well as the S&P 500. Furniture, ceramics, cars, photography, wine and weapons were also worthwhile investments during the last decade. Lyons and Hannover are not the only ones putting theory into practice. Citigroup has created in essence an art mutual fund. Deutchsche Bank recently launched its own art fund and others are raising money for an ``art investment bank.'' Not to be outdone by the ``Wall Street suits'' artist Ben McNeill has gone straight to the public. He minted 800 shares in his ``Art Shares'' project at $5 each. Each can be redeemed for $10 in 2004, But buyers think they are worth more. They've traded on his Web site for as high as $43. William Goetzmann when he was at the Columbia Business School constructed an art index and concluded that painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated. I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future returns but the gains should be taxed the same. In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there an `efficient' art market?'' A well known art dealer answered: ``Definitely not. That's one of the things that make the market so interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction. Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't appreciate. Art is less volatile. If bouncing bond prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you silly, art may be the right investment for you. Because art and collectibles are investments, the long term capital gains tax treatment should be the same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that. Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what winds up in museums like the New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes from collectors. Collecting isn't just for the hoyty toity. It seems that everyone collects something. Some collections are better investments than others. Some collections are just bizarre. The internet makes collecting big business. The flea market fanatics are also avid collectors. In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, Audubon prints, chai pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, and caps, guns and dolls. This bill could be called the ``Fine art, furniture, figurines, coins and stamps, china and pottery, silver, cast iron and brass wares, beanie babies, rugs, quilts, and other textiles, architectural columns, glassware, jewelry, lamps, military memorabilia, toys, dolls, trains, entertainment memorabilia, political memorabilia, books, maps, antique hardware, clocks and watches'' Capital Gains Parity Act and I still would not have accurately captured the full scope of the bill. For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, but you never know. Antique Roadshow is one of the most popular shows on TV. Everyone knows the story about the women who bought the card table at a yard sale for $25. It turned out to be the work of a Boston cabinet maker circa 1797. It later sold at Sotheby's for $490,000. Like the women on Antique Roadshow, you could be creating a sizeable taxable asset if you decide to sell your art or collectible collection. You may find that your collecting passion has created a tax predicament--to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on any appreciation over your purchase price. The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, 18 percent if the asset has been held for five or more years. The second area where people similarly situated are not treated similarly in the tax code deals with charitable contributions. When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction it shouldn't, but under current law does, matter whether you are an artist or not. Under current law an artist/creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. The bill I am introducing with Senators Leahy and Bennett will allow a fair market deduction for the artist. It includes certain safeguards to keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other charitable contributions it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income, AGI. If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of AGI limit. I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse. The revenue estimate for the capital gains provision is $2.3 billion over ten years and the estimate for the charitable deduction is approximately $48 million over ten years. I hope my colleagues will help me put the internally consistent into the Internal Revenue Code--for art's sake. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.