Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be very brief. This amendment has very little to do with Medicare. The budget resolution takes care of Medicare, thanks to a bipartisan understanding. I call to the attention of millions of newly married couples and all of the married couples who are filing tax returns this year that this amendment says you can't have the marriage tax penalty that Senator Hutchison recommends on the floor of the Senate, for the adoption of this amendment in the name of not having any tax cuts knocks out the marriage tax penalty provision. I don't think that is what Americans want. Speaking about what Americans want, they want us to get rid of the marriage tax penalty and get rid of it quick. If you adopt this amendment, that is gone. All of Senator Hutchison's work in trying to get us to vote on this is out the window because we will have decided that is not in order. The Senator's amendment will not be in order. Reconciliation cannot include her marriage tax penalty. That is the issue. I believe the Senate will overwhelmingly support Senator Hutchison and deny Senator Robb because there is already Medicare in this budget resolution--$40 billion worth. Democrats crowed on how good it is and all of a sudden went to the White House and invented a new thing. We have taken care of Medicare in this budget resolution. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 10 minutes left on the bill?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Lautenberg. I yield myself 2 minutes and yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Texas. We have 3\1/2\ minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. He yielded his time. What is the ruling of the Chair? Do we have time or not?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does Senator Allard have?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes. Let's make it 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for Senator Allard and all those who are supporting him on this amendment. But I surely did not want the debate to end today without talking about what we have already done and what this budget resolution does. In the last 2 years, we have reduced the debt held by the public. I hear people talking about both kinds of debt on the floor. But did I hear Senator Voinovich say he was quoting from somebody who stated the best thing we can do is reduce the debt held by the public when we have a surplus? We have already reduced it by $355 billion. This budget resolution--so everyone will know--will reduce the debt by an additional $1.1 trillion. Frankly, I am going to give an estimate, but I think I will be close. If we stay on this path, the interest on the national debt will have been reduced between $100 billion and $130 billion. I ask, how much is enough? There is an argument being made that since this money is Social Security trust fund money, it does not really reduce the debt because we may have to use it someday. Right now, as we sit in this Senate, and as I stand and talk, there is less interest being paid because the Social Security trust fund money is not being spent; it is being saved, which means we have that much less IOUs to the public. We are going to have $1.1 trillion more over the next 5 years, making the total, in a period of about 7 years, of almost $1.5 trillion. I think that on my side of the aisle, the same Senators who are concerned about whether this is real, because someday we have to fix Social Security, in my mind's eye I think they are all for personal accounts as a solution to the Social Security problem. I suggest that if we do personal accounts, then we will not spend this money. In fact, it will turn up on the side of the ledger as having been saved rather than having been spent. So it is too early to predict what kind of reform will occur, and when it will occur, if it occurs, on Social Security. What we have to look at is right now and the next 5 years in this budget resolution. Some would make it sound as if $1.1 trillion applied to the debt--a portion of which is from the on-budget surplus--isn't enough, that we ought to do more. Let me suggest, what is left over after doing that, over the next 5 years, is about $390 billion. That is what is left over in new money, off a freeze. You have to take care of defense with that, which I think a fair guess would be that by itself it is going to grow at $20 billion a year at a minimum. What about all the rest of Government? Are we literally going to say we are not going to have a single increase in the rest of Government? Of course, we are going to have some. What about a tax bill of some type? Sooner or later both sides of the aisle--and we are going to get a new President, but we are going to have some tax relief. That all has to come out of the remaining money, some portion of which they keep saying: Put more on the debt. They can argue whichever way they want. Part of it will come out of the tax relief in the future; part of it will come out of spending in the future; maybe part of it will come out of defense in the future. But I do not believe this Budget Committee did anything but the right thing in assuming that about $1.1 trillion out of a surplus that is probably totally, for both kinds of surplus, about $1.5 trillion, is put on the debt. Everybody claims they want to do more. Everybody quotes Alan Greenspan. My friend, Senator Gramm, once said: Quoting Alan Greenspan is sort of like quoting the Bible. It depends on whether you are reading John or Matthew; you can get a quote in one of them that faith alone gets you to Heaven, and you can quote the other one that faith and a little work gets you to Heaven. Choose whichever you like. But you can quote either one. I am going to say--to quote Alan Greenspan to my way of thinking--the best thing you can do is put a surplus on the debt that you owe to the public. But then he says, if the next choice is between spending it and tax relief, unequivocally, tax relief; and, third, the worst for the economy is to spend more. Frankly, I am amazed that we have Republicans complaining about not having enough on the debt when all we have left over is used for two things: $150 billion, spread over 5 years, in tax relief, unless we do not do it. If we do not have tax relief at all, it all goes on the debt. That is right in the budget resolution. That is binding. So if you do not do tax relief, it goes on the debt. The rest goes to contemplated increases in defense and a very small amount for the myriad domestic programs that we have in our Government. We have to be both realists and theorists. We have to be philosophical and we have to apply it with some benchmarks to reality. To tell you the honest truth, and to share with my fellow Senators, never in my life--25 years of which was spent with great deficits--did I ever assume we would be applying as much as this budget resolution contemplates against the debt. Our interest is going to decline--I am corrected here--from about $224 billion a year to about $166 billion by the year 2005. That is with the tax relief we have and with the defense increases we have. Then, if you want to go out the next 5 years, it comes down precipitously thereafter. Frankly, this generation of Americans, and those working and trying to make a living, are all out there saying: We are putting part of our taxes into debt relief. They are asking: How much is enough? Are you going to have any left over to give us a little tax relief? Are you going to have any left over so we can have an adequate Defense Department? Or are you really going to put it all on the debt? I understand I am exaggerating when I say ``all,'' but how much more can we do? I do not believe we ought to go beyond what we have in this budget resolution. Democrats will claim maybe $75 billion more ought to go on the debt. Senator Allard has it in some formula by the year we ought to have more. I think they both ought to lose. I hope, before we are finished, they will both lose because the right thing to do is just about what the Budget Committee agreed to: about $10 billion, or so, a year out of the on-budget surplus; and the entire Social Security surplus going unused, staying in the fund. When I ask, How much is enough? I suggest that the most significant fiscal policy change made to this point--to the benefit of Americans of the future--is something that came from our side of the aisle, and in particular that I thought up one day; and that most significant fiscal change of events is that all the Social Security surplus stays in the Social Security fund. Ask Dr. Greenspan, looking over the last decade, and from what he can see in the future: What is the most significant fiscal policy change to the betterment of America? He will say that one, if you live by it. We are living by it right here in this budget resolution, and somebody is suggesting that isn't enough. Somebody such as Dr. Greenspan thinks it is a whopping amount. I imagine if he could write it down on a piece of paper, he would say: I really never thought Congress would ever do that. If they do it for another 5 or 10 years, what a plus will occur, what a positive thing to happen for American consumers, the American worker, and America's future. I will just summarize by stating a rather unbelievable fact: By the year 2005, interest expenses will have decreased from 13 percent to 8 percent of the Federal budget. That is the only significant portion of the budget that has declined, from 13 percent of the budget down to 8 percent by 2005. Pretty good work, Congress, pretty good work.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever time the Senator would like.

Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Reid will agree that I may offer the Johnson amendment--he asked that it be offered on his behalf--and a second-degree from me, and we vote on both of them by voice vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnson, I send a first-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent this be in order.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is not often that we are on the floor in this mode, where I am opposing my junior Senator's request. On this one, I am in opposition and will shortly move to table. I suggest the Congress of the United States is going to have an opportunity before the year is out to vote on a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That act, as passed, plus the appropriations decisions made by Senator Specter and his Democratic minority member, approved by the appropriations in the Senate, will determine where the specific money goes--not what we are saying on the floor that we assume is in our number. I believe we are going to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and it is not going to be filled with targeted programs as it is now, or at least the States will have an option to do otherwise, to approach this from ``we will receive the money, we will sign an accountability agreement, and let us decide where our priorities are.'' One shoe doesn't fit every school district in America in terms of aid. In fact, sometimes we tell them to do the things they don't want to do. I don't believe this is a debate over the enumerated tools Senator Bingaman says he is adding. The issue is, are we adding as much as the President to a budget of last year, which was $43 billion. The answer is, yes, we are. We are going to decide, as the Senate and House, how it is spent. We are not deciding that tonight, whether the Bingaman amendment is adopted or not; It is going to be up to another series of votes. I don't know whether we are going to fund the programs that he thinks are great programs. Somebody else is going to decide that. We are doing as much as the President in program authority; of that, I am confident. With that, I move to table the Bingaman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if Senator Byrd could yield me 3 minutes off his time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to argue in two parts. My first part has to do with the highways and byways and freeways of America and our home cities across this land. I think there is no one in this Chamber who has not been home to their State and found that people somewhere in their State are frustrated because we do not have adequate roads to handle the traffic. No, I am not suggesting I know how to do that in terms of these very heavily congested areas. But there is no doubt, we are way behind the curve in terms of supplying highways, freeways, and arteries in our cities. You are not going to tell the American people they can't have their dream. I mean, their dream is to own a house and own a car or cars. One of their big dreams is to have that place where they want it. We are just never going to succeed in telling the American people: You cannot live 5 miles from your employment, as they did in Russia. They had it all figured out: They all worked; they all got on one train; and they all went to work. In fact, they told them in high school what they were going to be. That is not America. So we are behind. In fact, I am not sure in most places we are gaining on the congestion and traffic. Frankly, I could come down here and say I am pretty satisfied that repeal of the 4.3- cent tax would not hurt next year, but in 7 years actually it would hurt. The truth of the matter is, we should not deceive anybody. The problem we have is the problem that America uses more crude oil and crude-oil products than we are now producing. Frankly, we have an American policy, I regret to say--especially since President Bill Clinton has been in office and Vice President Gore--of taking more and more of America, the public lands, out of production that you cannot use; you cannot get on it to find oil, even if it is there, all under some mystique that on ``public domain'' we should not be looking for oil, that we ought to be saving it for something. Then tonight we are going to have a debate, I say to the Senator. I am not sure where everyone is going to be on it. But actually one one- hundredth of 1 percent of the Arctic wilderness, called ANWR, one one- hundredth of 1 percent is a little strip of land that they are trying to say: Why don't we try to find out if there is oil there? You know what they think might be there? Sixteen billion barrels of oil. Pretty much. It is as much as we will import from Saudi Arabia over the next 5, 6, 7 years. That would be the amount. That is pretty good. That is a pretty large amount of oil. All of it would be owned by Americans. All of it would be drilled by Americans. Americans would have jobs. Instead, we say it is just going to ruin that wilderness. Somebody who is neutral ought to pass on that, not somebody who wants to save this wilderness, including one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the land surface. If I had my notes from my desk, I would tell you how much we have taken out of production in America. We have taken lands on which people could find oil, and we have said: You cannot get on it to find oil. We have regulations, through the Department of the Interior, that instead of saying, hey, get out here and find your oil, they make it tough. It is sort of like: Boy, do we have to put up with you? It is not like: Boy, I hope you find oil. It is American oil. It is sort of like: Maybe it is OK, but it is just too bad that we have to do this. What is too bad about it? We are going to buy this oil someplace. We have less American oil, fewer rigs producing oil, and we are getting more dependent. The last point is, according to the independent institute within the Department of Energy, the one that is supposed to do analysis of supply, they tell us--I hope they are wrong--they cannot find out how much the production of the world is. That sounds incredible. If they cannot, somebody in our Government should. We should not be surprised all of a sudden if somebody says: You know, they are producing 4 million barrels less. We are hurting. We ought to know; there is no way to keep this a real secret. If we set out to find it, I am sure we could. In fact, I think there are probably some parts of the American Government we do not know about that might already know that. But that is very important. To summarize, my last point is, we need to build more roads for America's congestion, not less. Secondly, we need to take a positive approach. If the President does not want to, we will not get it done for a while. But we have to decide what are our goals as Americans in terms of producing energy? How much should we be conserving? Let's get serious about it. This will not happen with a bunch of Government regs. This will happen when the marketplace of America is opened up to oil and gas production. I am even wondering whether the largest supply of natural gas is offshore in some parts of America. We have said: No more offshore drilling. It isn't environmentally dangerous. In fact, I submit to the Senate, it is more dangerous to increase our reliance and thus bring more tankers into American ports than it would be to seriously consider doing more offshore drilling. But, of course, for some people what I am speaking about is kind of radical. I think it is really kind of common sense about America's growing dependence. I am not ashamed or embarrassed about saying I would change it drastically. I would recommend that somebody change it dramatically. Tell the world we are going to try. We are not going to give in. We currently think it is an American energy policy to send the Secretary of Energy--one of New Mexico's sons; my friend--around to make a deal. That is America's energy policy? Have you ever heard of anything like that being the policy of America? What if they said no? In this case, they started asking a few questions and said: Maybe we don't want to hurt your economy. Kuwait does not know what we want of them. We saved them from the invasion. They do not know whether we want to dance on a barrel of oil or what we want. They already said: Look, America, you send us so many signals, we don't know what to do. But we are on your side. I think we ought to be very clear, it is not this 4.3-cent tax. What it is, we do not have a policy to produce more and tell the world we are growing more independent rather than dependent. Whatever time I have, if I have any, I yield back.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back the 2 minutes I have on the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is the second-degree amendment. It makes it clear.

Mr. DOMENICI. All it does is, it makes it clear that the bill we are relating to is to be reported out by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on this amendment be yielded back and that I may send a second-degree amendment on behalf of myself to the desk, that all time be yielded back and the second-degree amendment be agreed to, that the first- degree amendment, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes, reserving 2 minutes. First, wherever the distinguished Senator from New York referred to the Senator from New Mexico, it is more fair he say the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, because I do not want credit for something of which I am not in favor. I want to make three quick arguments: First, for those who are listening and those in American education who think we are going to decide in detail how the money in this budget is going to be used for education, I assure them the appropriations subcommittee headed by Senator Specter and the Senate is going to determine how the money in this budget resolution is spent in education. We can come to the floor and talk about all the problems in education and say the Bingaman amendment takes care of these things. The truth of the matter is that is a wish list. That is what somebody hopes will happen. What will happen is what the appropriators decide. Anybody who has a wish for education can come down here today and say the Senate budget resolution is going to take care of this problem in education, and if those listening believe it, then wait around for 3 months and see what the appropriators do. My second point is that there is a lot of talk about whether or not we cut the President's budget. I have a Congressional Budget Office analysis of our education numbers. This is what they say: The Senate's budget is $47.877 billion in budget authority, program authority; the President's is $47.228 billion, a difference of $600 million more in the pending resolution than that for which the President provided. The baseline from which we start this year is $43.3 billion. Everybody can do the arithmetic. We have added more than the President to this function. Where it goes will be determined by the appropriators. My other observation is that while in office, this President has called himself the education President. He has bragged that he has gotten Congress to go along with him on education. There are Members coming to the floor saying these are Republican education numbers while, as a matter of fact, the President is bragging they are his over the last 5 years. I do not know whom to believe, but I think we have increased education significantly over the last 6 years while we have been in power in the Senate. My last observation has to do with whether or not the new bill that is going to be reported out of committee and come to the floor is going to do away with categorical programs. To those who love the 300 or 400 categorical programs we have and think they must be helping education, I say that is why it has not gotten any better in the last 10 years. If they think that is what the bill says, let me tell them it is going to have three menu items. One is if schools like what we have now, they can keep it. They can keep that program everybody thinks is so great or they can opt to take a lump sum with strings attached that mean performance and accountability. If they take that, they have to account for it; they have to be accountable, and they receive a bonus if their accountability is on the plus side. If not, they do not get a bonus. Actually, we are going to let the schools decide which way they want to go. Republicans are already in the field trying out this idea. To the amazement of some Democrats, school leaders, school boards, superintendents, and principals are opting our way, saying: Give us a chance instead of putting all these strings on our education money. We have done enough. We do not need the Bingaman amendment. I hope it is tabled later in the day. I commend my colleague for his interest in education. We have done enough when we do more than the President this year. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, the next votes will occur today starting at 5:30 p.m. I thank all Members for their cooperation.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that all votes in the voting sequence after the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to reserve 2 minutes. I will speak for 4 minutes. Mr. President, this request has been worked out with the minority. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur in relation to the Bingaman amendment at 5:30 p.m. in a stacked sequence, with no amendment in order to the Bingaman amendment prior to the vote and, further, that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote for explanation. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time on the Bingaman first-degree amendment, the amendment be laid aside, and Senator Allard be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment relative to debt reduction. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use of or yielding back of time, Senator Conrad be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment relative to debt reduction, and that following the use or yielding back of time, those votes occur in a stacked sequence.