Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act which is included in this conference report along with the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The energy and water bill is a very good bill that has unfortunately had a difficult path toward enactment. The bill originally passed the Senate by a vote of 93-1 on September 7. The Senate then approved the original energy and water conference report by a vote of 57-37 on October 2. However, the President vetoed that bill because of a provision intended to prevent increased springtime flood risk on the lower Missouri River--a provision the President had signed the previous 3 years. Whatever the reason, it was vetoed, it came back to us, and now it is in a conference form. I regret it has taken so much of our time and taken so long to get done but it is a very good bill. Earlier today, the House passed the conference report by a vote of 386-24, and I hope the Senate will also overwhelmingly support the conference report. Senator Reid and I, along with Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd, have worked hard to prepare an outstanding bill that meets the needs of the country and addresses many of the Senators' top priorities. The Senate and House full committee chairmen were very supportive and have provided the additional resources at conference that were necessary to address many priority issues for Members. They have allowed the House to come up $630 million to the Senate number on the defense allocation ($13.484 billion), and the Senate nondefense allocation to be increased by $925 million. I would now like to highlight some of the great things we have been able to do in this bill. The conference report provides $5.0 billion for nuclear weapons activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration, an increase of $370 million over the request and $580 million over current year. The additional funds are required to meet additional requirements within the aging nuclear weapons complex, and reflects the conferees' concern about the state of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program. As it is now, the program is not on schedule, given the current budget, to develop the tools, technologies and skill-base to refurbish our weapons and certify them for the stockpile. For example, we are behind schedule and over cost on the production of both pits and secondaries for our nuclear weapons. The committee has provided significant increases to these areas. When we use the term ``Stockpile Stewardship Program,'' we are talking about a program that the United States has put in place to make sure that our weapons systems are indeed safe, reliable, and that we do not have to do underground testing to confirm that. In fact, we have not been doing testing because the Congress of the United States said we should not. To supply the information necessary to keep the stockpile strong, reliable, and safe, this science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program was put in place. It has a few more years before we will have it proved up and then we will look at it carefully and make sure that it does the job. This does not mean we are making nuclear weapons, for we are not. It will come as a surprise to some who are listening that the United States makes no nuclear weapons and we have not for some time. Nonetheless, we must keep in place the infrastructure and the things that are necessary in the event we have to do that, because of a failure of our program called science-based stockpile stewardship or some other untoward event that might occur in the world. Furthermore, DOE has failed to keep good modern facilities and our production complex is in a terrible state of disrepair. To address these problems, the mark provides an increase of over $100 million for the production plants in Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, and South Carolina. But it is not just the physical infrastructure that is deteriorating within the weapons complex, morale among the scientists at the three weapons laboratories is at an all-time low. For example, the last 2 years at Los Alamos have witnessed security problems that greatly damaged the trust relationship between the Government and its scientists. Additionally, research funds have been cut and punitive restrictions on travel imposed. None of this seems to move in the right direction, in fact, they probably did not help. As a result, the labs are having great difficulty recruiting and retaining America's greatest scientists. To help address this problem, the conference agreement has increased the travel cap from $150 million to $185 million, and increased laboratory directed research and development to 6 percent. The travel restrictions which have become so burdensome were put in because, somehow, we thought if we didn't let scientists travel they wouldn't go to meetings in Taiwan and China and someplace like that and exchange secret information. Clearly, travel restriction has become a very onerous burden, for good scientists working for universities or otherwise do travel. That is part of their growing up, maturing, and once they are mature and great scientists, they go there to show their fellow scientist what the past has put into their minds. The conference agreement also includes a compromise proposal that allows work on the National Ignition Facility, a major laser complex to be used for nuclear weapons stewardship work, to continue. That project is funded at $199 million, $10 million below the request of $209 million. Of that amount, $70 million is fenced pending the project meeting a number of milestones by March 3, 2001. The conference agreement also includes several provisions to strengthen and clarify the operation of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The conference report includes provisions to give the Administrator a 3-year term of office, prohibit the ``dual-hatting'' of NNSA and DOE employees, and limit the authority of the Secretary of Energy to reorganize the statutory structure of the NNSA. I tell the Senate they have to do some very difficult things by March 15 or they do not get the fenced funding that is in this bill. For defense nuclear nonproliferation activities within the NNSA, the conference report provides $874 million, which is $8 million above the request and $145 million over current year. This amount of funding again shows the Congress' strong support of a broad variety of efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear materials and expertise from the former Soviet Union. For other programs within the Department of Energy, the conference agreement provides $422 million for solar and renewables, which is $33 million below the request but $60 million over current year. For nuclear energy, the conference report provides $260 million, $28 million below the request. The decrease is due to a transfer of cleanup obligations to the Office of Environmental Management. Nuclear power R&D actually increased significantly over current year. The conference report provides $6.8 billion for environmental cleanup at DOE sites across the country. That is $56 million over the request and $496 million over current year. For the Office of Science, the conference report provides $3.19 billion, $24 million over the request and $400 over current year. The conference added over $300 million in order to address significant shortfalls that existed in both the Senate and House bills. The conference agreement includes full funding of $278 million for the Spallation Neutron Source in Tennessee. On the water side of the bill, the conference report provides $4.5 billion for water resource development activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, including $1.7 billion for construction activities, and $1.9 billion for ongoing operation and maintenance activities. The total Corps number is $461 million over the budget request and $415 million over the enacted level for fiscal year 2000. The conference agreement includes funding for approximately 40 high priority new construction starts across the country. While the recommendation is a significant increase over both the budget request and fiscal year 2000 level, it should be pointed out that there is a $40 to $50 billion backlog of authorized projects awaiting construction. Regarding the construction account of $1.7 billion, although it is $350 million above the request, it is within the range of the current year construction level of $1.6 billion. The conference agreement provides $776 million for activities of the Bureau of Reclamation. That is $25 million below the budget request and $23 million over the funding level for fiscal year 2000. No funding is included for the California Bay-Delta restoration due to the lack of program authorization for fiscal year 2001 and future years. The conference agreement includes funding to initiate a small number of new water conservation and water recycling and reuse projects. Finally, the conference agreement provides funding for a number of independent agencies. For the Appalachian Regional Commission, the conference report provides $66.4 million, $5 million below the request but slightly above the current year. For the Denali Commission, the conference report provides $30 million, compared to $20 million provided in the current year. For the Delta Regional Authority, the conference report provides $20 million for the initial year of funding, a reduction from the request of $30 million. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the conference report provides $482 million, the amount of budget request. The conferees have also included a provision extending and revising NRC's fee recovery authority. The revised fee structure will reduce fees gradually over 5 years to address fairness and equity issues raised by licensees. Overall, this is an outstanding energy and water conference report. We have made a good faith effort to address the concerns raised in the President's veto message and I believe we have a bill that the President will sign. Suffice it to say, we have been able in this bill to keep the Corps of Engineers moving ahead, to have projects in the States that many Senators requested that we believe feel are very solid projects. Without the extra money given to us in the allocation, we would have been unable to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have with Senator Reid 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid is not here, but I understand he might want some time. I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect amounts provided for emergency requirements. I hereby submit revisions to the 2001 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget authority Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Allocation: General purpose discretionary................................... $606,674,000,000 $597,098,000,000 Highways........................................................ .................... 26,920,000,000 Mass Transit.................................................... .................... 4,639,000,000 Mandatory....................................................... 327,787,000,000 310,215,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased today, Mr. President, that Senator Campbell introduced this critical legislation, and am proud to have supported and cosponsored his efforts from the beginning. He and I have faced many a battle regarding this issue over the years. I believe, however, that this legislation reflects the cooperative efforts among the parties to secure needed water supplies in Colorado and New Mexico, and I am pleased it may finally become law. While we are running out of time in this Congress, the Secretary of Interior signed a Record of Decision on September 25 supporting these amendments, and his staff helped to negotiate them. The time is ripe for action. After years of hard work by the proponents, everyone is ready to move forward. The Southern Utes and the Ute Mountain Utes have a 5-year window before they have to sue to enforce their water rights. Passage of this legislation will settle negotiated claims by the Colorado Ute Tribes on the Animas and La Plata Rivers, while protecting other water users. For years now, the San Juan Water Commission, together with non- Indian water users in New Mexico, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute tribes have been negotiating with the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and other to resolve the complex problems surrounding the Animas-La Plata project and water usage in the four corners area. The bill has Administration support, which has been long-fought and hard-won. Finally, the administration has shown their interest in settling the Colorado Ute Indian water rights claims by accepting the tribes' own suggestions and water needs of the Four Corners non-Indian community. In New Mexico, this legislation will provide needed water for the Navajo Community of Shiprock and protect San Juan-Chama project water, on which tribes, towns and cities along the Rio Grande rely. The New Mexico portion of the project will be used by the San Juan Water Commission to provide water to the residents of North Western New Mexico and by the Navajos for their use in the Northern Navajo Nation. This legislation is not intended to quantify or otherwise adversely affect the water rights of the Navajos, and they support this legislation. In anticipation of development of the Animas-La Plata project, the state of New Mexico set aside 49,200 acre feet of water in 1956. Importantly, this legislation allows the State Engineer from the State of New Mexico to return all or any portion of the New Mexico water right permit to the Interstate Stream Commission or the Animas-La Plata beneficiaries. I am pleased the proponents of the Animas-La Plata project have participated in the long process to search for compromise. I support the direction of the participants in this process to reduce costs, provide environmental benefits, and provide water for the Colorado Ute tribes under the 1988 Settlement Act. Mr. President, the administration has a duty to protect the federal trust relationship with the Ute tribes, as well as a duty to the state of New Mexico to make good on the promises of 40 years ago. S. 2508 represents a compromise for which all parties affected have labored long and hard to achieve. It is the long-overdue vehicle for implementing the United States' promise of water to New Mexico, Colorado and the Colorado Ute tribes while still addressing the needs of endangered species and the American taxpayer. Water scarcity continues to be a critical issue in the arid West and no one would benefit from litigation of water rights if we do not press forward. According to recent scientific predictions, rationing may be required within the next two years. Successful development of additional water in the San Juan Basin, with its endangered fish, will give the rest of New Mexico good arguments why other endangered fish, such as the silvery minnow, can co-exist with additional water development. Additionally, successful settlement of the two tribes' claims will remove the threat of disrupting the water supply vital to the economic and industrial base for Northwest New Mexico, which contributes to the rest of New Mexico. The citizens of Northwest New Mexico have waited more than 40 years for this water--that's long enough.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't know.

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I will be as quick as I can because I understand Senator Gramm wants to comment at more length than I. Let me say to the Senator from Nebraska, when you came to the Senate, I had already been here a while. I didn't know anything about you. I didn't know you were a Medal of Honor recipient of the United States. I know you don't like to hear this, but I want to tell you that what you are doing tonight shows that you have something about you that is intuitively or instinctively courageous because what you are down here doing is not so easy for many Senators because, obviously, there is going to be a lot of guff for what you have proposed tonight, asking that we not waive the Budget Act. I wish to also say to everyone that neither of us--including Senator Gramm--are saying we should not do what we are doing tonight for our veterans. What we are saying is, with 2 days left in the session, neither the House nor the Senate having any detailed hearings, nor the Medicare people having detailed hearings on this, we come out of a conference with an agreement and propose a little item that over a decade will cost $60 billion. That may be something veterans are entitled to, but I believe we are all thinking that there is no end to American prosperity and to American surpluses. I think we have come to the conclusion that they will be here forever and they are in quantities beyond anything we can imagine--and whatever goes in the waning moments goes. I think I can support this; I just don't believe we ought to do it now, with 2 days left, without sufficient hearings on the effect on the rest of Government. I might say, without trying to figure out who we are going to give prescription drugs to under Medicare, who are also people who are hurting very much and who think Medicare should have covered them better--there are millions of those people. I believe the Budget Act singularly permitted the Congress to get its deficit under control. There are benefits from that. Every single American, every single veteran, and everyone in this country participates in a prosperity movement, with low interest rates and things people thought they would never acquire because when we used to stand up and say, ``Don't waive the Budget Act,'' nobody waived it. In fact, I didn't check tonight to see how many years had gone by when neither Senator Domenici, nor Senator Gramm, nor Senator Kerrey, nor whomever would say that violates the Budget Act to see if you could get 61 votes. That is why the decade of the 1990s became the decade of discipline. Do you know the Government of the United States, on average, for the decade of the 1990s grew 3.3 percent, the most formidable in terms of small growth in the last 50 years? There is no reason other than that as to why this deficit has come down the way it has and prosperity has grown the way it has. I believe next year is a year to look at the big picture, to fit this into all of the other things we have to do. But I don't believe we ought to waive a Budget Act which has protected our people, protected our veterans, and protected the cost of military equipment because of inflation coming down. Those are all great big benefits that we don't quite understand, but they are very important. Again, tonight by insisting that we comply with the Budget Act, you are showing me a degree of courage that makes me understand who you are. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield briefly?

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Nebraska have any time to yield me?

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.

Mr. DOMENICI. I believe I have 5 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today to support for the Defense Authorization Conference Report of 2001. The conferees have worked very hard to achieve consensus or reach compromises on the provisions found in this year's report. The conference report contains many positive things for ensuring America's continued military dominance; in addition, it also includes several authorizations for defense activities in the state of New Mexico. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member for their contributions. I would like to specifically address what has been achieved in this bill with respect to laser programs and directed energy technologies. I strongly believe that lasers, like THEL and Airborne Laser, will offer offensive and defensive military means far beyond our current capabilities. These programs deserve our full support. At the same time, we need better coordination of our nation's efforts in lasers and other directed energy technologies. I am pleased the Committee accepted my amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to implement the High Energy Laser Master Plan and authorizes up to $30 million for these vital technologies. This amendment also requires selection of a site for the Joint Technology Office (JTO) by the Secretary of Defense. The JTO will perform a critical role in achieving better coordination and execution of our nation's laser programs. The bill also underscores the vital role of the High Energy Laser Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range and the importance of DoD's close coordination with other federal agencies, academia and industry in creating a stable foundation for further progress in these technologies. Although my original legislation encompassed all directed energy technologies, including microwaves, in this defense-wide effort, the conferees would not support this position. Instead, the legislation will require the Pentagon to take a hard look at integrating all other directed energy technologies into the current structure for High Energy Laser programs. From my perspective this would be a logical next step in the Pentagon's efforts to streamline and better coordinate its research programs. This would also accelerate progress and maximize efficiencies for these related technology areas. The conferees also addressed shortfalls in some specific ongoing laser weapons programs. They authorized $85 million to restore the most of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program funding. The Air Force's ABL program is the only missile defense system currently contemplated that would strike and kill missiles in their boost phase. In addition, the conferees reached a reasonable compromise on the control of funding for Airborne Laser after the Air Force radically cut that program's budget. The Air Force will retain funding control for ABL; however, it must have the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) approval before making any changes to any aspect of the program, including its budget. The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) was authorized at $15 million for FY2001. THEL represents one of the first weapons systems being tested that utilizes high energy lasers for the purposes of missile defense. I led the charge to obtain an additional $5.7 million in FY00 funding for continued testing of this weapon system this year. Since the passage of the Senate bill earlier this year, THEL has shown that lasers can provide effective, speed of light defenses against Katyusha rockets. In the coming months, THEL will be tested against other targets and will provide us additional insights into the lethality of this particular type of system. I am committed to addressing the shortfalls in the science and technology funding to ensure more rapid development and fielding of high energy laser weapons. However, I am also committed to expanding these efforts to all directed energy technologies. While I appreciate the Committee's attention to these vital programs, more must be done to ensure the directed energy science and technology is fully streamlined and sufficiently funded. These technologies can assist in countering some of the most prevalent threats confronting us. This long-awaited conference report will have a positive impact on the day-to-day concerns confronting our military. For example, quality of life received much needed attention. I applaud the 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel and the comprehensive health care for Medicare-eligible military retirees. The conference report also retained the extension of the TRICARE Prime benefit to families of service members assigned to remote locations and the elimination of co- payments for services received under TRICARE Prime. This legislation contains landmark provisions with respect to healthcare for our military retirees. Many complicated and situation- specific problems currently exist with the health care programs for active and retired military members as well as for veterans. It will take more than one year of fixes to find the right combination of policies and ensure that the funding for military health care is not forced to compete with other defense priorities. These will aid in addressing the health care crisis within our military and provide proof of our desire to keep our promise. I applaud the conferees for enacting sweeping reform to a broken system. Military Construction and family housing is authorized at $8.8 billion, an increase of $788 million over the Administration's request. I am pleased that projects critical to the operational effectiveness and well being of the service members and military families residing in New Mexico were addressed in this bill. These are not glamourous projects. These authorizations will replace critical crumbling infrastructure, such as repair of the Bonito pipeline between La Luz and Holloman Air Force Base. Five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams were included at a cost of $15.7 million. This will provide us with a total of 32 Civil Support Teams by the end of fiscal year 2001. These teams are comprised of full-time National Guard personnel trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological events in support of local first responders. One such team is currently being trained and fielded in New Mexico, ensuring that New Mexico constituents and its vital assets have better protection against such attacks. The bill authorizes a total of $13 billion for Atomic Energy Defense activities of the Department of Energy. A total of $6.4 billion of this funding is for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Over $1.0 billion is authorized for the nonproliferation and threat reduction programs of the Departments of Defense and Energy. These programs continue to make great strides in the critical process of securing weapons of mass destruction and retaining scientific expertise in the former Soviet Union. To further ensure that these threat reduction programs achieve their goals, the committee has also included several initiatives to obtain greater commitment and necessary access from Russia. Earlier this year I introduced a bill to improve the structure and signal a meaningful U.S. commitment to DOE's nuclear cities initiative. I strongly believe that without significant restructuring in nuclear weapons production complex of Russia the progress in strategic arms reductions could readily be reversed. Further, the proliferation threat of underemployed and underpaid Russian weapons scientists could create a direct, negative impact on international security. I thank the Committee for focusing efforts on this issue. While I am pleased with the authorization levels to support stockpile stewardship and nonproliferation, I am dismayed that the conferees took it upon themselves to adopt additional provisions on polygraphs. These new requirements will entail polygraphs for an estimated 5,000 additional persons working in our nuclear complex. I find it astounding--especially in light of the findings in the Baker/Hamilton Report--that the conferees included these provisions. That report stated unequivocally that ``(t)he current negative climate is incompatible with the performance of good science. A perfect security system at a national laboratory is of no use if the laboratory can no longer generate the cutting-edge technology that needs to be protected . . .'' There is little evidence that polygraphs administered as a screening technique is an effective use of security resources. The Conferees apparently view mass polygraphs of everyone at the Labs as a silver bullet that will ensure no future security breaches. That is a naive view of security that fails to recognize that polygraphs are simply one tool among many, that must be wisely and judiciously used to ensure a strong security culture that will allow science to thrive. Otherwise, the silver bullet of mass polygraph will end up killing the labs, not protecting them. In sum, security is a moot point if our national laboratories fail to achieve scientific advances worth protecting. The Baker/Hamilton Report clearly indicated that we should avoid further ``made in Washington'' rules that frustrate scientific pursuits and only serve to further demoralize laboratory personnel. I believe these provisions will only make a bad situation worse. Finally, $38.9 billion is provided for the defense research, development, test and evaluation programs--an increase of $1.1 billion over the President's budget. This funding will focus on the revolutionary technologies to address emerging threats and ensure that America's military remains dominant in the future. In years past I have repeatedly emphasized the need to stop the ebbing tide and end the lengthy decline in defense budgets. We must not tire in our efforts to maintain a strong, ready and professional military. Quality of life is central to recruitment and retention. Combat readiness of our armed forces must never be at risk. And we must ensure that we are developing and leveraging new technologies to the maximum extent. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines require the means necessary to respond to international uncertainty and address different and diffuse security threats. We must not fail them or U.S. citizens in rising to this challenge. One of the most dangerous things confronting the United States of America is the current situation of morale at the three nuclear laboratories of the United States. These are the three labs that for three generations we have sent the greatest scientists in America, the best young scientists who wanted to go because it was a great place to work. We used to get the top graduate Ph.D.s from Texas A&M in physics. They would cherish going to one of the nuclear laboratories for 10 or 12 years. From MIT, from Harvard, from Cal Tech, everywhere. We were being told about a current report available to this committee, while it was in conference, the committee that produced this bill, called a Baker-Hamilton report, named after Senator Baker and Representative Hamilton. It is about 6 weeks old. They were asked to check the current situation in our laboratories. They are more worried about the morale of the scientists there than any other single thing. They have concluded that the recruitment of young, bright scientists is off in excess of 50 percent because of the constant bombardment of those laboratories over the last 18 months with references to security, some of which has been corrected. They also concluded that a laboratory which is perfectly secure but cannot maintain the highest degree of science in the world is not a very good laboratory. They maintain that we should do less polygraphs, not more, be more targeted, and more efficient and more effective. Guess what the bill does. This bill permits 5,000 additional laboratory employees. This may even permit them to go down to a janitor, I don't know, and submit polygraph tests to them. And believe it or not, they provide a waiver for the Secretary of Energy. Then they say you cannot use the waiver if, in fact, the reason for it is that the laboratory is having morale problems and cannot keep its personnel to stay alive. That is paraphrasing. I read the exact words: This amendment would prohibit the Secretary from using the waiver to maintain the scientific viability of a DOE laboratory. That is the precise reason you should be able to use a waiver, the viability of the laboratories. Frankly, I am not at all sure everyone who signed this conference report and produced the bill that they really think is a great bill knows that provision is in there. I say to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, I worked hard and fast and side by side with the Senator from Virginia to get a new law to create a new, semiautonomous agency with which he helped so much. It is now known as the National Nuclear Safety Administration, headed by a great general whom you know, General Gordon. If you asked him, Can these laboratories work under these kinds of conditions? he would tell you: Please don't do that. He would say: Please don't do that. That is the wrong thing to do. Frankly, all I am asking is that the Senate take heed of what I am saying. I am not asking for anything more. I am not even asking the distinguished chairman for anything today. I only hope he is listening and next year, early on, when the Senator from New Mexico tries to change this provision consistent with the Baker-Hamilton report--and almost everybody who has looked at our National Laboratories since the Wen Ho Lee case would agree, too--I hope the distinguished chairman and the chairman's staff will consider, early in the year of the next Congress, something that will fix this provision; 5,000 additional polygraph employees is not the way to go with the laboratories in the position they are in now. There is no evidence that polygraphs of the type they are talking about have anything to do with security, veracity, or anything else. I know the people who work there. It is somewhat of an insult to consider the average employee, some of whom have been there 30 years, has to be subject to a polygraph because security has gone awry in the laboratories. I really wish I had had a chance to present this issue. I think it is exactly the kind of thing we should not be doing. I am going to do everything I can, starting next year with the first legislation that is around, to change this. In the meantime, I am glad the Secretary does not have to go next month and start immediately imposing these polygraphs. He has a little bit of time. I hope he squeezes the time so next year we can fix it. That is all I have on this subject. I say to the distinguished chairman, thank you for yielding me time.

Mr. DOMENICI. He has already raised it.

Mr. DOMENICI. No. I don't. If you say that is the case, I disagree.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect amounts provided for emergency requirements. I hereby submit revisions to the 2001 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: [Dollars in millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation: General purpose discretionary............... $602,307 $593,714 Highways.................................... ........... 26,920 Mass transit................................ ........... 4,639 Mandatory................................... 327,787 310,215

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 2000 budget through September 30, 2000. 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), which replaced the 2000 concurrent resolution on the budget (H. Con. Res. 68). The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $19.3 billion in budget authority and by $20.6 billion in outlays. Current level is $28 million below the revenue floor in 2000. Since my last report, dated September 5, 2000, the Congress has cleared, and the President has signed, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-259). This action changed the 2000 current level of budget authority and outlays. This is my last report for fiscal year 2000. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following material.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator does that, I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank you for your comments. I do not agree with you with reference to my responsibility, but I think we know each other well enough. I know what I had to do, and I know where my responsibility lies, but I thank you very much.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that. I have been asked to do this. You have asked a number of times, and the objection has been raised just as I am raising it. I regret I have to do it. I am not here suggesting you have not taken due diligence in producing this bill. I am saying in the waning moments of this session, this is what I have been asked to do, and I must object. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say again to my distinguished friend from Arizona, I have no such understanding and representatives on the floor of the majority leader's office have asked me to do this.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will say to my friend from Arizona, I have been asked by a number of Senators who cannot be here at this hour to object in their behalf. So I do object.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not believe I have to and I will not do that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, from what I understand, he did it with a very cool hand. Maybe it was different in those days. It was less confrontational than today, as I understand it--with no criticism and no inferences; just that it was different when he was leading.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday, and maybe two previous occasions on the Senate floor, I discussed the Gore budget and what is going to happen to the huge amount of money that we are getting from the taxpayers, which we have begun to call a ``surplus.'' I choose now to call it the ``tax overpayment.'' It is what the people are paying in that we don't need. I would like to, once again, make sure the Republican candidate for President, George W. Bush, and the candidate for Vice President--who last night did such a marvelous job--the distinguished former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney--I urge them to continue to tell the American people what the Gore budget will look like. When it is mentioned, everybody says this came from the Budget Committee staff and the Republicans, and, therefore, you shouldn't use it; that it is partisan; that it is like paper that is not even worth using. I say to our two candidates, keep using it. Keep saying it is true because they are about as good as any people we have ever had to look at budgets. I am chairman of that committee, and, frankly, I have relied on their expertise year after year. I don't think I have to exaggerate and say they are the best. They are the best at getting to the bottom of programs and analyzing them. I asked them to do it. They did it. They gave us a major report on the subject, and I will say to our candidate--to the Governor of Texas, to the former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney--no matter what they say about it, you use it. The Gore budget has 200 new programs in it. If you estimate appropriately their cost based upon what is said about the program, you cannot pay for those programs without using all of the on-budget surplus and $700 to $900 billion of the Social Security surplus. Now, that is our version. We think it is true. And we don't believe the American people actually think when you finally have a surplus-- because we are paying so much more in taxes than we need--we don't think the American people want the Government to grow at the largest rate in modern history. Probably if you put the Gore expenditure budget into effect, you will increase Government in 1 to 2 years, more than any modern year, excepting maybe the Lyndon Johnson Great Society years. Now, it doesn't matter to me as the chairman of the Budget Committee what Vice President Gore says about these figures, nor what our distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Vice Presidential nominee who I have great, great respect for, it doesn't matter what they keep saying. The truth is, we have an analysis of that budget. Early next week we will have a full analysis. They finally put their budget on to sheets of paper. It is a very large budget. We will finally have that analyzed. I am told it will come out no different. It will come out the same way, 200-plus new programs, the largest new expenditure in the next 5 years that we have ever had in the Government. If you take them at their word and do all of them, you cannot do it without spending part of the Social Security surplus. No matter what they say about its source, it is as good as anything they have. I have great respect for the Vice Presidential nominee. He knows that. Last night he said something that wasn't true, and I ask him to revisit this. He said their budget, the budget they have, analyzed for the future, was done by a neutral body called the Congressional Budget Office. That is to make sure that everybody would think it is authentic and that the Domenici budget analysis is not authentic. I assure everyone, the Congressional Budget Office does not do an analysis of either candidate's budget. In fact, that is not within their prerogative. They have not analyzed the Gore budget. They have not analyzed the budget of the Governor of Texas, either. And they won't. The Democrats have somebody analyzing theirs, watching out for them, who is on their team, and they want everybody to think ours, and the majority staff has worked on this for years, they want everyone to believe it has no credibility. I think to the contrary. My friend Dick Cheney will be in my State in a few days. I hope he talks about this subject. Let them bring up the fact that Democrats don't think it is worth very much. We will make sure the public understands we have as good an analysis as anyone. If the Democratic nominee for President does every program he contemplates--there are some that are superexpensive. There are some universal programs in there that will never get adopted by Congress, but we might as well make sure the public understands they are expected, they are contemplated, they are out there to tell the people, elect us and we will do all these things. That is part of my reason for coming to the floor, so anyone who wonders whether that is authentic, I can assure Members, I will not give ground on this through the election and after the election. I believe it is right. I think our candidates ought to use it. Now I will talk about the so-called Al Gore tax cut plan and the George W. Bush plan. I don't know if I have enough time today to go through the George W. Bush plan, which is very simple. I am not sure I can do that because today I want to talk a little bit about a rather unique way to cut taxes, or allege you are cutting taxes, for middle- income America when you are not. If there is a middle-income American who happens to be listening, and they say, oh, boy, Vice President Gore has spoken so much about giving the middle class a tax cut, I will get a tax cut--my friends, you are not necessarily going to get the tax cut. The Gore plan says the Internal Revenue Service will decide whether you get a tax cut. And you are going to apply for it when you file your tax return, and if you are a family, you have to go through up to 25 different tests with the Internal Revenue Service to determine what you are entitled to. In fact, if the people think the Internal Revenue Code is complicated, and IRS is not doing a good job, then remember that every single so-called tax cut that Vice President Gore is telling you about is going to be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, which is going to pass judgment on whether you are entitled to one of the scores of tax credits or other tax benefits. Let me go further, the IRS will determine what tax refunds or government check you are entitled to, because under Vice President Gore's plan not only taxpayers get tax breaks, people who pay no taxes get government checks. People will fill out their federal tax return. They will find a check in the mail from the Internal Revenue Service, even though they pay no taxes. That is part of his tax plan. The part for middle Americans, middle- income Americans, you cannot just file your tax return and say, I am a middle-income American earning $65,000, and I want my 5-percent tax cut, or 7 or 10, you have to ask yourself if you qualify for a tax credit or a refundable tax credit under this plan. There are all kinds of reasons you might get some tax relief, but they are all going to administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Isn't that nice? So if you apply, and the IRS agrees, you get to use your tax money. If you apply and if you fit, you get to use your taxpayer dollars for a certain specified purpose. The most significant difference in the two men's tax proposals is that George W. Bush gives you a tax refund and you can spend it for whatever you want. The Vice President, the nominee from the Democratic Party, gives you no tax cut to spend as you may. Since it is your money, you have to qualify as if you were under a Federal program. Gore wants to imbed social policy of the country into the tax code. We are substituting the Internal Revenue Service as the one that gets to see whether or not you are going to be able to have these particular services paid for by the Federal Government. I cannot believe when the American people understand this that they are going to say they want that tax approach. Let me repeat, in order to get all of the so-called Gore middle-class tax cut, a family has to meet 25 different tests, at least one for each of the 25 proposed pieces of the Gore Middle Class tax cut. That means if you don't meet the tests, you don't get any relief, any help. Wouldn't it be better to have a 5-percent or a 10-percent tax cut, and you use the money as you see fit, if you are $67,000, a $72,000 family or $35,000 or $40,000? You have to understand or try to understand and then comply with 25 sets of rules before you see $1 of so-called tax relief. I thought tax policy was supposed to be neutral. The best tax policy does not try to engineer social behavior. I didn't think it was supposed to be the vehicle by which you ran scores of social programs and you told Americans if you want that program, you can pay for it and we will give you the money; but if you don't want that program, you don't get any tax relief. Gore proposes to substitute the Internal Revenue Service for a score of Government programs. Instead of saying let's create a new federal program in this area with Government, Al Gore says file a tax return, and if you fit the cookie cutter profile, you can help your great grandmother who is sick--you get some of your tax overpayment back to help pay some of those expenses. The Government will help you. It will not help you with a program, it will help you so that you will get a piece of the taxes you pay refunded--or deducted. This is not a step toward tax simplification. It will make the Tax Code more complicated. If it is too complicated today, it will become even more complicated. I think it would not take 3 or 4 years before the American people will force us to throw it out. But I do not think it will ever become law. Some of the tax cuts are not even for taxpayers, much less for middle-class Americans. Because of the income limits, many people who think they are middle class are left totally out because they earn too much money to pigeonholed into Al Gore's ``middle class,'' or to be entitled to one of the myriad tax credits the Vice President suggests is good tax policy. A refundable tax credit is Tax Code talk for Government checks to people who do not pay Federal income taxes. It sounds more like a way to have some welfare spending and use the income tax code to administer it. There is only one refundable credit in the code now, and many believe it is one too many. But I do not believe almost all of the entire surplus that is going to go to taxpayers ought to be done in this way, with refundable tax credits going to people who pay no federal income tax so long as the person does what the Vice President thinks you ought to do with your money. Refundable child care credits, refundable day care, refundable after school care--all specific and all already covered in the Earned Income tax credit. You don't have to be a taxpayer to get a so-called middle-income tax cut for child care, family leave, or stay-at-home parents or kids in afterschool care, or expanding the earned-income tax credit. More spending programs dressed up as tax cuts will be there for those who do not pay any taxes. In addition to refundable credits, the Vice President proposes initiates that this Administration has vetoed. For instance, tuition savings accounts are listed now as one of those things in the long list of things that you might put your money away for and get some tax relief. Al Gore says he would like to enact them. Interesting; this administration vetoed that bill for them more than once. The Vice President says he is for marriage penalty relief yet the Administration vetoed the bill providing it. The Vice President's proposal is curious. Let me say there is no marriage penalty relief if you own your own home and pay a mortgage. Isn't that interesting? This administration boasts record numbers of American homeowners. Yet, they will not give a dollar of marriage tax penalty relief to people who own homes and pay mortgages, again, using the Tax Code for social approaches in the United States. Perhaps the reason for this one is there are too many people who are building too many homes, and maybe we ought to slow it down. There is a tax credit for individual health insurance. Yet you get part of the middle-income tax cut if you need additional training, or certification programs. That is a separate notion in their Tax Code. So, today, I would like to start a series of discussions which I will bring to the floor regularly. The next one will be: What is the George Bush tax plan. The next time I come, I will include in the Record the entirety of Vice President Gore's so-called middle-income tax relief. I will bring the entire list. You might say: Why are you bringing a list? Isn't a middle-income tax cut just a percentage, just a cut? No; it is myriad programs. If you do not qualify as having done one of those, or choose to do one of them, you do not get tax credits nor refundable tax credits. That is a very new way to run America. We are going to expand those beyond recognition. The most significant one we have now is the earned-income tax credit. It is refundable. A lot of people who pay no federal income tax get a check from the federal government under the Earned Income Tax Credit program. It is an encouragement for low-income workers to work--although we have changed that, where you do not have to work. But, just think, we have a few of them. The entire middle-income tax proposal of the Vice President is going to be specific things that specific Americans qualify for or they do not get any tax relief. Essentially, I am going to close saying the most significant aspect of the Bush tax cut is that the 15-percent bracket is cut to 10. This is a tax cut for taxpayers. That encompasses almost the entirety of the tax cuts--15 percent at the bottom goes to 10. But, you see, everybody at every bracket pays taxes on some of their income at the lowest rate--15-percent bracket. So cutting the lowest rate helps all taxpayers. It is very simple. You get it because of the tax bracket and whatever other things are in the current Tax Code. I repeat, there is much talk about the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent pays 33 percent of the taxes in America. When the Bush plan is completed they will pay 34 percent of the total tax take of America. I yield the floor.