Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been telling you all, Democrat and Republican alike, that what is going to happen with this surplus is we are going to spend it all. I have made a preliminary analysis of this week's Democratic amendments that use the surplus. They have now used $430 billion of the surplus for new programs. This one is in this 430. Some others aren't. I merely ask that we not do this and save some of the money for the American taxpayers.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire 40 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 1 minute. I yield 40 seconds to the Senator from New Hampshire, and I will take the other 20 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. No. 173 must be agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Murray's amendment numbered 173 has disappeared, and No. 218 by Senator Helms has been withdrawn.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from Ohio knows of the great respect I have for him. Over the years, I have worked with him when he was Governor. But I just can't agree with this amendment, and I hope the Senate doesn't. This amendment says that the American taxpayer deserves no tax relief and, yet, we can spend the money that is in surplus, but we can't give the American people any tax relief. This strikes the entire tax relief program that we have planned in this budget resolution. We have heard some say that we should have only half. We have heard others say we should only have two-thirds of it. This one says none. While in the budget we spend money for Medicare, we spend money out of the surplus for other programs. But now it is being said that we cannot spend any of it on tax cuts. I don't believe this is good policy, and I don't think that is where we ought to end up this year. We will spend and spend and spend that surplus, and there won't be any left for the American people in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have only 13 amendments remaining on our side. I hope Members or their staffs will please sit down with our staff and see if we can resolve some of these and give us some idea whether we can finish tonight. I very much appreciate it. Thank you for yielding, Senator. I am sorry for using your time. amendment no. 161

Mr. DOMENICI. The following amendments, and I am very appreciative of this, have been withdrawn: 234, 239, 235, 241 and 193.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the following amendments have been cleared on both sides: Shelby, 209; Sessions, 210; Santorum, 211; Roberts, 216; Gorton, 215; Specter, 220; Jeffords, 222; Shelby, 225, as modified; 226, Enzi; Collins, 229; Chafee, 237; Specter, 219; Fitzgerald, 217; and Jeffords, 221.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk of amendment No. 225 from Senator Shelby. This modification has been approved by the other side.

Mr. DOMENICI. If we get this kind of cooperation, we can do it; if we don't get cooperation, a few Senators will keep us over until tomorrow.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator would yield for some housekeeping, we are having a degree of success with the list of amendments. If your name is not on this list, then it means you are insisting on a rollcall vote. That means there are still about 15 or 20 of you we are looking for to sit down and talk, so we will not have to have so many rollcall votes. These are all generous Senators on this list. They have decided--and the other side has agreed--to accept them. We will do that right now, en bloc. So that Members might be thinking about this, maybe we ought to find a new way to take care of sense-of-the-Senate amendments that show up on a budget resolution. I had an idea that maybe we should change the law and have a second budget resolution after we have done the real one, and anybody that has a sense of the Senate can offer them to the second budget bill and ask the leader to set this up in a recess period, and people can file these. When we return from the recess, we will vote on them en bloc. I think that would be an excellent solution. The leader and I will be talking about it soon. In the meantime, we thank you for great cooperation.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall vote on this amendment. I agree to accept it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I remind Senators we have 10 minutes on the next vote. We intend to have regular order so we can finish at a reasonable time. Ten minutes is what we are allowed.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not think I am going to argue the substance, other than to say this amendment increases taxes by $64 billion. This amendment increases taxes by $64 billion, relative to the committee bill before us. It suggests it be spent for community and regional development. Frankly, it would not have to be. The appropriators have their own judgment. They can do what they want with it. Essentially, I do not believe we ought to be raising taxes to pay for programs like this. In addition, this is not germane and is subject to a point of order, which I now make under the Budget Act. It would exceed the caps that we have agreed to and that are written into statutory law.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, once again this body will take an historic step in preserving one of America's cultural treasures--Route 66. Passage of S. 292, the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act, will preserve the unique cultural resources along the famous Route and authorize the Interior Secretary to provide assistance through the Park Service. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, reintroduced a companion bill (H.R. 66) in the House of Representatives. This legislation almost became law at the end of the 105th Congress, but failed to pass in the House of Representatives due to last minute political wrangling. However, I believe that unfortunate turn of events had more to do with political grandstanding than to any question of merit. I introduced the ``Route 66 Study Act of 1990,'' which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. As a result of that study, I introduced legislation last summer authorizing the National Park Service to join with federal, state and private efforts to preserve aspects of historic Route 66, the nation's most important thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century. The Administration once again testified in favor of this legislation, which is identical to last year's bill. S. 292 authorizes a funding level over 10 years and stresses that we want the federal government to support grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to Santa Monica, Calif. It rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and heritage. Route 66 allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West. This bill is designed to assist private efforts to preserve structures and other cultural resources of the historic Route 66 corridor. S. 292 authorizes the National Park Service to support state, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. The Park Service will also act as a clearing house for communication among federal, state, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of America's Main Street. I thank my colleagues for once again recognizing the importance of this legislation. I hope this bill will not suffer unfairly as it did last year in the House, and we may quickly have a law recognizing the 20th Century equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. The bill (S. 292) was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed; as follows:

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mrs. President, I once again rise to express pleasure that the Senate has passed S. 291--the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act. I, along with Congressman Skeen, have been working to convey tracts of land--paid for by Carlsbad Irrigation District and referred to as ``acquired lands''--back to the district, during the past several congresses. Identical legislation passed the Senate last year, it enjoys bi-partisan support, and hopefully will pass in the House of Representatives soon. The Carlsbad Irrigation District has had operations and maintenance responsibilities for this Bureau of Reclamation project for the past 66 years. It met all the repayment obligations to the government in 1991, and it's about time we let the District have what is rightfully theirs. This legislation will not affect operations at the New Mexico state park at Brantley Dam, or the operations and ownership of the dam itself. Furthermore, the bill will not affect recreation activities in the area. This legislation accomplishes three main things: it allows conveyance of acquired lands and facilities to Carlsbad Irrigation District; allows the District to assume management of leases and the benefits of the receipts from these acquired lands; and sets a 180 day deadline for the transfer, establishing a 50-50 cost-sharing standard for carrying out the transfer. Unfortunately, after years of testimony from the District and support from the Administration, this legislation failed to pass the House of Representatives in the waning days of the 105th Congress. With such continued support for this logical and fair bill, I hope the House will put aside its differences and pass this worthy legislation soon. The Carlsbad Irrigation District has been waiting more than long enough to begin getting the benefits for that which they have paid.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, we are going to be as cooperative as we can and beyond this in agreeing to accept amendments. We are working with you to do the same, which means we can take many more later and accept them as we work our way through this part.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to use very much time. Mr. President, first of all, as I read the amendment, I wondered, I could not quite figure out what was going wrong. Essentially this amendment is subject to a point of order, because we do not have authority to tell the Finance Committee in a reconciliation instruction to do this. The law says what we can do in a reconciliation bill, and it does not include ordering them to trigger taxes. It says reduce taxes by a given amount over the period of time reflected in the reconciliation agreement. So it is subject to a point of order which I will raise when we come around to voting. But aside from that, it seems to me if you write a tax law for the Nation, that any tax law you write is an ongoing tax law. Once you put it in, it is ongoing, at least the general tax provisions, unless you want to sunset it or the like. Frankly, I do not believe it would be appropriate to trigger a tax on and off depending upon what the onbudget surplus is. In addition, I do not want to say too much about this, but our lockbox is a pretty good safeguard that we will not be spending Social Security surpluses in the future, because if you have to borrow any extra money, then you need a 60-vote point of order. So I think the Senator can rest assured if we vote for the lockbox as contemplated wherein the debt limit is going to be affected and you will have to raise it, I think it will be a pretty good indication we cannot go significantly in the red in future years, even with a tax cut that occurs in years prior to that. Something will have to be done. I compliment the Senator for his concern about fiscal responsibility. I am sure inherent in this is his concurrence we ought to have some tax cuts. I am not sure which of the various amendments he has agreed to heretofore on how much. But I compliment him for being concerned, but I could not accept it and I do not think it would be valid if we did.