Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is fair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let the Senator decide.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is the order you arrived on the floor: Senator Warner and then the Senator from Ohio, Senator Bond and----

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could agree, would the Senator object if that be the unanimous consent, those Senators in that order?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bond, on this subject?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much would the Senator like?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to explain to the Senate why I am supporting this. The actual sense of this resolution says: It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals in the budget resolution do not assume the reduction of any Federal gasoline tax on either a temporary or permanent basis. I might say to the Senate, that is already true. The Senate budget resolution does not--does not, in the functional totals. So I am delighted to support it. There is some language saying: Within the tax provisions. The tax committee can do a lot of different things. One thing suggested was temporary repeal of the gasoline tax. I am pleased to have an opportunity to vote on whether or not the Senate would like that to remain even contemplated. Whether they will be precluded because of a vote, I do not know, but I think we ought to vote tomorrow on this issue. I support the sense of the Senate that is proposed. I ask Senators how many more want to speak on this resolution because we have two others?

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield off his hour, 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia will add me as a cosponsor.

Mr. DOMENICI. We don't need to have morning business. Let's let her speak and count it against the bill. That is what you would like, and I would like that also.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Byrd-Warner amendment regarding gas tax, all debate time be consumed this evening and there be no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the Byrd-Warner amendment first in any series of votes scheduled by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, on Thursday. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote, there be 2 minutes equally divided for closing remarks.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, Mr. President, I am sure this amendment violates the Budget Act because it is not germane. I will make that point of order shortly. But I am afraid that if we adopted this amendment, it could, over time, preclude the kind of defense spending we need and the kind of tax relief in which we might be interested. I believe we are doing plenty to reduce the debt in this budget resolution: $177 billion in the first year, $1.1 trillion over 5 years. The ratio of tax relief to debt reduction, over 5 years, is 8 to 1. In the first year, it is 13 to 1. That is a pretty good game plan. Mr. President, I make a point of order that this is not germane to the provisions of the budget resolution.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I will shortly move to table the amendment. I want to show you a chart that simply depicts the difference in priorities between the two sides. Alan Greenspan suggested we should put our surplus against the debt, unless we intend to spend it, in which event we should reduce or reform or give relief to the taxpayer. A big difference between the two is exemplified by this. They would give 4 percent of the surplus to the taxpayers. The difference is very easily depicted. They give 4 percent of the surplus to tax relief for the American taxpayer; we would give 11 percent. They would spend 22 percent of the surplus; we would spend 17 percent. That explains it. Alan Greenspan suggests instead of spending money, we ought to give it back to the taxpayers. That is what we are doing-- but a very small amount. As a matter of fact, $150 billion over 5 years, if we pass it, means $13 goes to debt reduction for $1 in tax relief in the first year; 8-1 over the 5 years. How much is enough? It seems to me the taxpayer deserves a little bit of it. We shouldn't be spending it. We should give it back to them. I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will give the Senator from Colorado 3 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the Senator's amendment or in opposition to the Conrad amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not want to provoke a long argument about who did the most to cause America to have these years of prosperity. I will summarize what I think. Frankly, I do not believe it is rational to say the Clinton tax increase of $290 billion is what caused this American economy to go buoyant and produce strong growth rates for the last 7 years. Essentially, that is what happened in that first year. Some say it added some credibility. To the extent it added credibility, it probably should have been taken off after the next year we had credibility. In any event, I want to talk about what we are doing here. I do not know why it is, with the surpluses we have, that we cannot get to the point where those on the other side of the aisle--at least almost all of them. They really do not want to have very much tax relief, if any, for the American people. When we boil it right down, the difference is not paying off the debt --there is a slight difference there--but the difference is spending, and that is it. They want to spend more, and we say let's give back more to the American people in tax relief. This is about as dramatic as I can give it, and it is a pretty honest interpretation of the Democrats' budget--that is what the Senator alludes to--versus our budget. The committee's resolution has 11 percent of the surplus going to tax reductions. They have 4 percent. In the committee's resolution, spending gets 17 percent of the surplus--this is the total surplus--and we put 72 percent of that surplus on the debt. The Democratic plan says let's do 4 percent in tax relief and 22 percent in spending. If one wants to quote Alan Greenspan correctly--as I said, it is like the Bible: It depends on how one wants to read him. But Alan Greenspan would say: Do not spend any of it; put it all on the surplus. And if you cannot put it all on the surplus, do not spend it; put it on tax relief. That is what we did. Essentially, when the argument is finished, for some reason, even though we get our tax relief down to a small amount--$1 in tax relief for $13 in debt reduction in the first year; over 5 years it is $1 in tax relief for $8 in deficit reduction--that is not good enough. We cannot even give back to the taxpayers $1 out of $9--8 plus 1; $8 in reduction of the debt. Here is the difference: We would spend 17 percent; they would spend 22 percent. It seems to me we are following the admonition of the distinguished Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and they are not. On the other hand, we can argue all day who is closest to what he says. The Republicans are being realistic. Out of these huge surpluses, we ought to give a little back to the American people sooner or later, and if we spend it, we do not have it to give back. That is just the way it is. That is the difference between the two. I do not believe I will need all of my half hour. I assume I have used 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Conrad have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding. Senator Roth is on the floor, I believe.

Mr. DOMENICI. If we are speaking about education--not AmeriCorps; that is not part of education; some might think it is, but it isn't-- according to the CBO, our budget resolution provides $47.877 billion for education. The President had $47.228--slightly less, $600 million less. What we are spending this year is 43.3. To get up and say all these groups support this--of course, if we ask them, do you want more money, they will say, of course, we want more money. Right? I don't think anybody in the education field, whether it is at the State level, the district level, or the national level will not affirmatively answer a questionnaire, will you support more money for education? The question is, Are we treating it with the priority that it deserves in this budget? There are two parts to ours. One is the sense- of-the-Senate language that says we need reform in education, not only more money. We don't need to try the same old things we have been trying, the so-called status quo, more targeted programs telling them precisely what to do, such as we did with special education. Then we didn't even fund special education to the amount we promised them, and they had to take it out of their regular budgets. We set the standard and we told them how to do it. I guarantee you, they would say, give us more funding in that program. They would answer yes across America. And we do provide more funding. In fact, since the Republicans have been in leadership, we have been trying to play some catchup on special education funding for the schools across America. Everyone should know our history has been for many decades, the cities, the States, and the counties pay for education essentially, not the Federal Government. So to make this out as a debate on what happens to public education in America is to ignore the fact that for most of our history we have paid between 6.5 and 8 percent of the total cost of kindergarten through 12, somewhere between 6.5 and maybe 8.5 percent. The rest is paid by whom? The taxpayers of the sovereign States of America. We are suggesting that a new program ought to come into being where they have more say-so, rather than less, about how our money is used, more flexibility and accountability. We have both suggestions in our budget resolution. I will take 1 additional minute. In every function in this Government, even the Economic Development Administration, where we understand there are 334 different activities in the Federal Government, they want more, not less. In a buoyant economy, growing with less than 5-percent unemployment, America putting money into economic development so people can run around acting as if they are creating jobs, of course they want more money. But the point is, don't the American taxpayers in a surplus of this size deserve some consideration? Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to say maybe we ought to get a little tax relief such as the marriage tax penalty. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me use 3 minutes of it. I say to Senator Kennedy, I am not arguing with your CBO or OMB numbers. I could not tell which it was. You said CBO and then said OMB. I do not know which it is. Look, I am not arguing about that because that is a total function. That is not education. There are other things than education in that function. Here is the education part. I will put in the Record what is in this budget resolution because it is supported by the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?