Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize to Senator Kennedy for not being here. I assume it is fair to say that I probably heard his argument as we put the budget through. It is similar to the one he made before. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have been here. But I just couldn't. When the time is up, let me ask if we could get a unanimous consent on stacked votes. Mr. President, I would like to talk just for a moment about the Republican budget as it pertains to a blueprint for our country's future. When I have used up about 6 minutes of my 15, will the Chair advise me? I appreciate that. First of all, let me say to those who are listening that we have a situation that is pretty unique in our country, and it is a situation that we ought to look at very carefully to see what the public policy ought to be and what would be best for America's future. The American taxpayer has received a bonanza in new taxes. As a matter of fact, there is now going to be over the next decade a huge surplus. ``surplus'' means the taxes collected exceed the expenditures. That is a surplus. We were used to living in a deficit. ``Deficit'' means the expenditures, the program costs, are more than the taxes that come in. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a sustained recovery; low interest rates, partially attributable to good, sound, budget policies; high productivity, because we have added new machines and equipment to the production of service organizations and what they sell to the American people, we have more money coming in than we are going to spend. Over the decade, it is going to be a very large amount of money. Where we depart from the Democrats who have been arguing on the floor--not all Democrats--the principal position on our side is that we think we don't need some of that big surplus paid in by the taxpayer, which means they are paying more than we need to run the Government year by year; we think a portion of that should go back to the taxpayer by way of tax changes that will help our taxpayers and will help the economy continue to grow and produce jobs and be a strong economy. We say there are three very important things to take care of, one of which is to give back some taxes to the American people, who are paying in more than they expected in terms of our Government. There are some who say we shouldn't do that or the budget resolution ought to state exactly how we are going to change those tax laws. Frankly, in the Congress we do things a little differently. There is a committee that will determine our tax reductions and our tax changes. All we can do is say we are making some money available for doing that. What we do is take all of the Social Security surplus--not 62 percent of it as does the President, but 100 percent of it--and we say that accumulation, that surplus, is set aside and cannot be used for tax cuts. Under our budget resolution, it is to be used for Social Security reform to pay for any additional costs. We think that is very exciting, and we think that is better than what the President has in mind. It is 100 percent of that surplus. There is a Medicare program which is very important to seniors. We have done three things in this budget regarding Medicare. One, the President cut $20 billion more out of Medicare during the next decade, and we said cut nothing, don't cut any more by way of expenditures out of the Medicare trust fund--$19 billion over 10 years. In addition, our budget plan increases Medicare spending by $200 billion over 10 years, an average of $20 billion a year. Then, starting in the sixth year of this budget, there is an additional $100 billion that does not go to tax cuts, does not go to the Social Security fund, that could be used by Medicare if Medicare needed it. In fact, we believe this is a very, very, ambitious program to make sure Medicare is taken care of. I remind everyone that a strong, powerful economy is one of the best tools to keep Medicare strong. Just a few weeks ago, the trustees in charge said, because things have been going so well, we have increased the life of the Medicare fund from the year 2008 to 2015. We have added between 7 and 8 years by keeping the economy going with a lot of employment and people paying into the Medicare system. We believe this budget is good policy for America. We think it is just as important to talk on the floor of the Senate about who pays all these taxes as what programs we ought to spend the money on. We don't want to just discuss how we can spend the money; we want to discuss the taxpayers. We are saying it is time to fix the Tax Code and make it more fair for married couples, put some other reductions in and return some of those tax dollars to the American people, because we are worried about taxpayers; they deserve our concern. At the same time, we have adequately provided for Medicare and adequately provided for an assured Social Security; that when the changes are made, and only then, will this trust fund money be used for Social Security. We are involved in an air war over in Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and we are going to need more money for that war. Everybody understands we are going to do that when we are asked. We will have it. It will change how much can go for taxes and how much can be held in reserve. It will change some of that, but actually that is a very high priority. I say to Senators and my fellow Americans that in our regular budget we provided for some very significant increases in defense and some significant increases in education. If you add that up, it is a pretty good package. We will go to conference with the House. I don't know what we can get out of them, but we will get a good budget. It will be very much like the one we produced. Having said that, I reserve the remainder of my time and hope the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts might yield back some of his time at some point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that we not proceed to the vote but, rather, that we have a quorum call now and see if the distinguished Senator can muster up another amendment on his side, and we will just wait for awhile and see.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg motion.

Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, we have 100 percent in the first 10 years. So the 15 percent that would have gone to Medicare under the proposal in the committee, added to the percent that the President saved of the Social Security trust fund, is the astronomical percentage of 77 percent of the Social Security trust fund. Guess what we did in our budget resolution. One hundred. Let's do that one. What is the difference there? Twenty-three percent additional accumulated surplus in the first 10 years is in the lockbox as we prescribed in our budget. Having said that, I relinquish the remainder of my time, if the Senator will relinquish his.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield down to 4\1/2\, and then we can both yield back the remainder. Let me say, first of all, I heard that the Senator from California had recently been to my State. Incidentally, I was quite surprised. I walked into the airport in New Mexico, our international airport. I ran into the Senator and asked her if she was coming all the way to New Mexico to try to defeat the budget that we prepared. She told me, ``No. I am here for other purposes.'' I was kind of glad of that, and I surely didn't want New Mexicans to listen to her about the budget when I worked so hard to try to get them to listen to me. She did not quite do that, because I looked around to see how much she got and it was pretty Democratic, what she did, with a big D. Anyhow, let me suggest, Senator, that you should be careful when you use these percentages. You say that what we want, speaking for you, we wanted 62 percent that the President wanted to set aside, and then we wanted 15 percent for Medicare. The budget is a big document, big numbers, but I just added those two up, and that is 77 percent.

Mr. DOMENICI. If we don't, we will put in a quorum call. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am just wondering if we can't stack a few votes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Shall we accept the amendment, or does the Senator want to have a vote?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just make a couple points for everyone. First, I think everybody here understands that when you go to conference, you go to conference with the House. You do not go to conference with yourself. If that were the case, we would rule supreme and there would be no need to go to conference, and whatever the House thought about any of these measures would be totally irrelevant. I think everybody understands that isn't the case. We have to go to conference with them. Secondly, I would like to make two points about what we do in our budget and what the President did so everybody will understand. Senator Lautenberg talks about the Republican budget and the lockbox that we contemplate and speculates that he does not know what it might be used for. Let me tell everybody so they will understand. For starters, in the first 10 years the Republican budget, and that which will be locked in to be spent as we determine in conference, is $300 billion--you got it, $300 billion--more than the President proposes to set aside for safekeeping for the Social Security trust account. Why is that the case? Because we say, put 100 percent of the accumulated surplus that belongs in the trust fund in the trust fund. For all the rhetoric about who is saving what, we put $300 billion more in there than the President, because the President concocted a 15-year payout for this trust fund. We have never even had a budget that contemplates 15 years. In fact, the President, when he goes beyond 5, he does not even have the programs enumerated in his budget, but he is telling us all, wait 15 years, and we will put enough money in that trust fund that is supposed to be there for some security. We said, put it in now as it accrues year by year--not 62 percent of it; 100 percent. In addition, for those who are wondering what we are doing about Social Security and what the President does about it, let me remind you, we do not spend one nickel of Social Security, of their money, for any new program. The President of the United States, in his budget, decided that it was not important to save Social Security by keeping their money. He had contemplated spending out of the Social Security trust fund $158 billion. Let me repeat, we now have a motion by the other side of the aisle, our good Democratic friends, challenging what we are doing, when the President of the United States spent $158 billion, in the first 5 years, out of the Social Security trust fund without any apologies--just said, ``Spend it.'' We say, ``Don't spend it. Keep it in the trust fund, and put it in a statutorily created lockbox that will be tied to debt limits so it can never be spent.'' Having said that, it is really ironic that the other side of the aisle claims the President is doing so much for Social Security, and they would like to join on his coattails, so much for Medicare, and they would like to join on his coattails, and the facts are what I have just told you. The facts are what I have just told you. Fellow Senators, you do not have to be worried about whether that Social Security trust fund is going to be used for tax cuts, because we cannot direct that any of that money be used for tax cuts. In fact, go read the resolution. It says tax cuts are to come from a mandated reconciliation pot of money that is called on-budget surplus. Mr. President, forget all the jargon. It means that tax cuts, if any, come out of surpluses that have nothing to do with the Social Security trust fund, by definition. So tax cuts are going to accrue over a decade, and they will come out of surpluses, not the surplus that is accumulated in the Social Security trust fund. Having said that, once again, the amendment is calculated to play politics, and I see no reason why we should not accept the instruction. So if the distinguished Senator would like us to accept it, we can get on with our business and we can accept it right now. If he would like a vote on it, we will tell all our people to vote 100 percent for it because, remember, we have to go to conference with the House, and we will do our very best, but we will be glad to accept it. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?

Mr. DOMENICI. I object, and let's read it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the right to object. Is it very lengthy?

Mr. DOMENICI. We can accept them; right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we will have one that has to do with praising our men in the military which we will attach to this at some point. Substantively, unless Senator Lautenberg proposes something that prompts a second-degree amendment of some type or prompts us to make an amendment, we do not have any contemplated at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Equally divided?

Mr. DOMENICI. Are second-degree amendments to those motions in order?

Mr. DOMENICI. Unless and until that is yielded back, another motion is not in order?

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it not correct, now that the time has been yielded back on the motion to appoint conferees, each motion to instruct carries 30 minutes equally divided and that is all the time available at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, and the Senate would probably like to know, what he has by way of motions on his side. How many does he think he is going to have this afternoon?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the half hour we have.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lautenberg that the situation now is that the motion I made to appoint conferees is pending. There is 1 hour on it. I am prepared to yield back time on that if the Senator from New Jersey is, and then he can proceed to his first motion.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand Senator Reid has some motions to instruct. I do not think they will be in order unless we yield back the time that has just been announced.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with respect to the budget resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on Department of Defense land withdrawals and environmental programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the Future Years Defense Program.