Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in behalf of the majority leader, I have the following statement. This morning the Senate will immediately proceed to a stacked series of rollcall votes with respect to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The first vote in the series will be a 15-minute vote with all succeeding votes in the series being limited to 10 minutes each. Up to six rollcall votes can be expected. Hopefully, that series of votes will include passage of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Following disposition of that bill, the Senate is also expected to consider the legislative appropriations bill. However, any votes ordered with respect to the legislative branch appropriations bill will be postponed, to occur on Tuesday, July 21, the time to be determined by the two leaders.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we have order, please.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back 1 minute I have in rebuttal.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Then, Mr. President, Senator Grams of Minnesota, Senator Thompson of Tennessee, and myself have written a letter to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whereby we have once again summarized this situation that we find, this hope that we have that our President will pursue negotiations and quickly arrive at a bilateral agreement to give the world a gift, a present that says: We are now going to get rid of a huge portion of the dismantlement surpluses that can still be used in the future for nuclear bombs, ridding our world of that potential. We ask that our colleagues read our suggestions, and that they, too, become interested in this proposal. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will follow this up next week, and perhaps my friend who occupies the Chair could join me that day, because the first part of our visit was a visit to France, ultimately to Germany, to talk about the nuclear power fuel cycle. I want, next week, to go into some detail as to how well the French people and the French Government are handling nuclear power, and how poorly we have handled that issue in America. Just to whet one's appetite about what we visited and what we will be talking about, let me just say the country of France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear powerplants--80 percent. It is the cleanest country, in terms of emissions. It is the least contributor to atmospheric pollution, which many in our country and around the world are concerned is causing global warming, because they don't burn any coal, they don't burn any oil. They produce most of their electricity from nuclear power. Isn't it interesting that they do not seem to be afraid? They have had no accidents of any consequence whatsoever. And we in America, who started this great technology, invented it, had the companies that were best at it--we sit idly by and claim we want to rid the atmosphere of the pollutants that might cause global warming and we essentially, through regulation and otherwise, have eliminated the prospect of nuclear power for some time in the United States. We will speak about that in more detail later. Mr. President, with reference to completing the Senate's business and then letting my good friend Senator Jeffords proceed with his speech as in morning business, I am going to proceed with the wrapup, which will include a privilege to the Senator to continue even after we have finished.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, Senator Rod Grams and Senator Fred Thompson and I traveled to Russia, preceded by 3 days in France. Senator Grams accompanied me to France; Senator Thompson, on the Russian part of the trip. We went to France and Russia to do very distinct things. In France, we wanted to talk about nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle, and if I have time this afternoon I will address that. If not, I will do that on another day. I would like to proceed with what we went to Russia for and what we determined and what recommendations and thoughts I have that come from that trip. Our primary goal when we went to Russia was to explore and develop options for the rapid disposition of Russian weapons-surplus plutonium. These materials represent a potential clear and present danger to the security of the United States and the world. The 50 tons that Russia has declared as surplus to their weapons program represents enough nuclear material for well over 5,000 nuclear weapons. Diversion of even small quantities of this material could fuel the nuclear weapons ambitions of many rogue nations and many nations in general. During our visit, we discovered that there was a very critical window of opportunity during which the United States can address the proliferation risks of this stock of weapons-surplus plutonium. We have urged that the administration, our President and our Vice President, seize on this opportunity. No one can reliably predict how long this window will stay open. We must act while it is open. Unclassified sources estimate that the United States and Russia currently have about 260 tons of plutonium--100 tons here and 160 tons in Russia. Much of this material is in classified weapons components which could be readily built into weapons. While we saw significant ongoing progress on control of nuclear weapons in Russia, much of which was with the assistance of the United States of America through our national laboratories, our visit confirmed the dire economic conditions in their closed cities, the cities that they used to provide ample resources on a high priority because they were the source of their nuclear strength. These conditions fuel concerns of serious magnitude. The United States has an immediate interest in ensuring that all Russian weapons-grade plutonium, as well as ours, as well as highly enriched uranium that is theirs and that is ours, is secure. Furthermore, Mr. President, as soon as possible, that material must be converted into unclassified forms that cannot be quickly reassembled into nuclear weapons. Then the materials must be placed in safeguarded storage. These actions, plus a reduction in Russia's large nuclear weapons remanufacturing capability, are necessary precursors to future arms control limits on nuclear warhead numbers. The United States and Russia have declared 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium as surplus. Current administration plans have asked in the budget for Congress to proceed with a program to use 3 tons per year of our surplus as mixed oxide, generally referred to as MOX fuel, for commercial nuclear reactors, while the Russians are focused on a program that would not use much of their plutonium as MOX. The process that is going on of negotiating between America and Russia is that Russia would have only 1.3 tons converted. So to summarize the concerns with the efforts thus far, I state the following with very grave concerns. No bilateral agreement is in place to control each country's rate of weapons dismantlement, conversion into unclassified shapes, and storage under international safeguards. We were told by the Russians that they were moving faster than the United States in this regard. But we need adequate transparency to assure our citizens on this count. The rates of MOX--mixed oxide--use that we propose and they propose are not equal and would in the long run exaggerate the larger Russian quantities. The planned mixed oxide use rate of Russian plutonium is so slow that it requires more than 30 years to dispose of the 50 tons that we have each declared to be surplus. The potential proliferation risk from this material exists as long as it is neither under international safeguards nor used in a reactor as MOX fuel. Thirty years is too long to wait for verifiable action on this material. On our trip, we explored whether other European entities would help with MOX fabrication and use in order to assist in increasing the plutonium disposition rate: We did not find a receptive audience that would consider introduction of this weapons plutonium into the European nuclear economy, where it would upset their goal of balance within their civilian nuclear cycle between plutonium recovered from spent fuel and plutonium expended as MOX fuel. We also discussed the French-German-Russian plan for relocation of a German MOX plant to Russia to provide their 1.3 ton capability. While the equipment and expertise are available, funding for this move has not been identified within the G-7 to date. As additional information, we learned from the Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Adamov that he would prefer not to use their surplus weapons plutonium as MOX. Instead, he favors saving it for use in future generations of advanced reactors. We learned that MOX fabrication and use in Russia will occur only with Western funding of their MOX plant and compensation to encourage their use of MOX in present reactors. The combination of Minister Adamov's vision combined with the economic situation in Russia provides an important opportunity to address mutual interests. I believe that he would support bilateral dismantlement of weapons, conversion from classified shapes to unclassified forms, and internationally verified storage. These steps must be accompanied by appropriate levels of transparency. These initial steps could and should occur rapidly, with a target goal of 10 tons per year. I also believe that Russia would accept MOX disposition of their plutonium at the slow rate that is currently planned, leaving most of their plutonium in storage for their subsequent generations of reactors. The United States, as well as other G-7 countries, may have to help Russia with resources. The program I've outlined would rapidly reduce potential threats from Russian surplus plutonium in a transparent and verifiable way. It could move far faster than our current program that focuses on immediate use of converted material in MOX fuel. This new program would shift focus onto the rates of material involved in the steps preceding MOX fabrication and use. It would still continue with MOX use, at a slower pace than dismantlement, conversion, and safeguarded storage. The final move to MOX would remain part of an integrated disposition program. Minister Adamov strongly noted his views that use of the plutonium as MOX in reactors is the only credible final disposition route. The United States has failed to fully appreciate the opportunity that exists to permanently reduce the threat posed by inventories of weapons-grade plutonium in Russia. Furthermore, the United States should not proceed with any unilateral program for disposition of our own weapons-surplus plutonium. Leadership from the White House will be essential to ensure success. These issues should be prominently featured at the July Gore/Kiriyenko meeting and the September Clinton/Yeltsin summit. Mr. President, I intend to work with you and our Senate colleagues to pursue actions towards these initiatives. One of our primary recommendations to President Clinton is that he designate a special envoy solely for the vital task of plutonium disposition in order to provide the full-time focused oversight and interagency coordination that is vital to achieving success. This envoy should also coordinate actions among the G-7 countries to ensure their participation in this challenge. It is evident that efforts in this Administration towards plutonium disposition have not been marked by a suitable level of urgency, commitment and attention. Designation of this special envoy is essential to address this serious issue. Finally, Mr. President, in our discussions within Russia, each Senator emphasized that many Russian actions are viewed in Congress as adding fuel to the fires of global weapons proliferation. We explained to our Russian hosts that Congressional concerns over their activities jeopardize the entire range of U.S.-Russia cooperative programs. These strong expressions of interest and concerns, directly from U.S. Senators to Russian leaders, should provide a framework within which the Administration can negotiate bilateral agreements that address these proliferation risks and truly enhance global security. I would just like to discuss with the Senate what went on in Russia, and further elaborate on the suggestions that I have. We were privileged to meet with the highest Russian officials who work in the area of atomic or nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. In these meetings, I believe it was mutually understood that there is a reason to take 50 tons of plutonium that they have from weapons, and 50 tons that we have, and if we cannot agree, and if the world will not accommodate efficiently more tons being converted to MOX fuel for reuse in nuclear powerplants, that we should establish in each country a storage facility that is internationally monitored, subject to international controls in both countries, where we will place this plutonium in changed forms so that in this new form it will be, as far as possible from being usable for military purposes and bomb production. What a gift we could make to the world if America and Russia could agree that, because of dismantlement--which is occurring, we have 50 tons of plutonium, and I have just told you the number of weapons it could produce if it was used again for nuclear weapons--that we could both say dismantling the weapons system is working. We agree with each other; we are going to have some abiding principles of transparency and control, and we are going to start to take this out of circulation. There is one other item that came to our attention as we discussed this proposal. Some of us were familiar with the now-heralded Nunn- Lugar proposal, whereby the United States helped Russia with some of the problems that it had with nuclear proliferation commodities and storage of fissionable materials in their country. The history of Nunn- Lugar, although it recently is very successful, was that for a number of years it could not get off of center. It stayed kind of stuck because of the myriad of agency involvements and rules and regulations. Knowing of that, we recommend that a special envoy be appointed by the President to be in charge of this program of attempting to reach a bilateral agreement on getting rid of 50 tons of plutonium that could be reused for bombmaking. So, in summary, the recommendations we make to our President and to our Vice President as they begin to work anew with Russia are as I have described them. Frankly, we believe, the three of us--and one of the three is the occupant of the Chair who attended the entire visit to France and Russia with reference to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons--we recommend that the President engage with and quickly reach agreement with the Russians on the disposition of 50 tons of plutonium; and that we commit, likewise, from our side, that this ultimately be done in a fashion whereby what cannot be turned, through MOX fuel, to a substance that cannot be used for bombs, that the remainder be changed in shapes and forms, but that the storage be monitored by international controls and international bodies so as to account for its safekeeping, and getting it out of circulation as potential use for nuclear weapons. In that regard, we have written to the President of the United States. The letter which we wrote, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, and I ask a similar letter to the Vice President receive similar treatment. The detailed letter that we prepared to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Honorable Sandy Berger, which was transmitted to the President and the Vice President--I ask unanimous consent that all those be printed in the Record so any Senator trying to further assess what we are recommending will have a full display in front of that Senator of the various proposals and ideas.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the committee amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 229, H.R. 765.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is an amendment at the desk to the bill. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the following bills: Calendar No. 443, S. 638; Calendar No. 349, S. 1069; Calendar No. 350, S. 1132; Calendar No. 444, S. 1043; Calendar No. 467, S. 1418; Calendar No. 454, S. 1510; Calendar No. 406, S. 1683; Calendar No. 464, S. 1695; Calendar No. 448, S. 1807; Calendar No. 450, H.R. 434; Calendar No. 445, H.R. 1439; Calendar No. 398, H.R. 1460, Calendar No. 446, H.R. 1779; Calendar No. 451, H.R. 2165; Calendar No. 452, H.R. 2217 and Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2841. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be agreed to; that the bills be read a third time and passed, as amended, if amended; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the bills appear at the appropriate place in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, Members have until 2 p.m. on Monday to file first-degree amendments to the legislative branch appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the legislative branch bill on Monday, the Senate begin consideration of S. 2260, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. on Monday, July 20. I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then begin a period for the transaction of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Jeffords from Vermont.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate convenes on Monday at 1 p.m., there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. Following that debate, the Senate will turn to the consideration of S. 2260, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session. Therefore, any votes ordered with respect to the legislative branch or Commerce-State-Justice bills will be stacked to occur at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual midyear review. I believe every Senator should acquaint himself with it. This CBO analysis speaks volumes about the success that the Republican-led Congress has had in putting the Federal Government's fiscal house in order--because policies aimed at reducing Federal spending, stimulating economic growth, coupled with the passage of the Balanced Budget Act last year have produced remarkable results. The Congressional Budget Office, which is our official scorekeeper and economic analysis group, now projects that there will be a Federal budget surplus of $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Let me repeat, the Congressional Budget Office now projects a Federal budget surplus of $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. This is up significantly from the $650 billion, 10-year number they gave us in January. The Budget Office forecasts surpluses of $63 billion for this year; but they tell us that surplus will grow, rising to $80 billion in 1999; $251 billion in 2008. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total accumulated surplus--I repeat --during the next 10 years will be a whopping $1.6 trillion. More importantly, the Budget Office projects that in the second 5 years, from 2003 to 2008, we will produce a $168 billion operating budget surplus. That means a surplus, excluding the money borrowed from Social Security. For those who said they wonder when the day will ever come when we will have a balanced budget, having returned to the Social Security trust fund whatever was used in the general funding of this Nation, the Congressional Budget Office says that day will arrive in the year 2003. And it will produce a very genuine and solid $40 billion a year, more or less, in a genuine surplus on budget, taking into consideration the Social Security trust fund in its entirety. In other words, under the leadership of this Congress, we have moved from Federal budgets that produced deficits for as far as the eye can see to budgets that project surpluses for as far as the eye can see. I believe we must now move to protect this surplus from those who would use it to expand Government. Rather, our first priority must be to protect and preserve the fiscal integrity of Social Security for the future. We are committed to that goal. But we are also committed to providing needed tax relief to our hard-working families. We now know that we will have an operating surplus, roughly $40 billion a year, beginning in the year 2005. Therefore, I believe we must see to it that this surplus is available for tax cuts for the American people and that we not spend this money to grow Government. Let us spend this money to grow the paychecks of Americans. Mr. President, there will be a lot of talk about this Congressional Budget Office's re-estimating of our national fiscal policy. I commend it to those who are concerned, legitimately concerned, about where we ought to go in the future based upon our successes. I also would like Senators to know that the Congressional Budget Office did not assume a robust, strong, growing economy for the entire next 10 years. They have taken into consideration the potential, although we hope it will not occur, of a downturn in the economy, and we still have these kinds of surpluses--indicating that the economy is vibrant, productive, that the increases in productivity are far greater than we have estimated in the past, tax revenues are growing faster than we estimated in the past. Clearly, an opportunity now is before us to make sure Social Security is taken care of and also to look carefully and surely right in the eye of, Should we give tax cuts to the American people? I think the answer is going to be a resounding yes. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my good friend.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 207 I voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The Senate-reported bill provides $56.7 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $40.8 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. All of the funding in this bill is nondefense spending. This Subcommittee received no allocation under the Crime Reduction Trust Fund. When outlays for prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $55.2 billion in BA and $47.5 billion in outlays for FY 1998. Including mandatory savings, the Subcommittee is at its 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) allocation totals $55.2 billion in budget authority (BA) and $47.5 billion in outlays. Within this amount, $13.7 billion in BA and $14.1 billion in outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending. For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all the mandatory savings in the bill, the Senate-reported bill at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $43 million in BA and $24 million in outlays above the President's budget request for these programs. I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 302(b) allocation. I appreciate the Committee's support for a number of ongoing projects and programs important to my home state of New Mexico as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am for the kids, but I am also for passing an appropriations bill that helps all the farmers in the United States and puts into play the entire agricultural program of this country. Frankly, Mr. President, the other day I came to the floor and talked about, how much longer are we going to spend debating the cigarette tax and various expenditures under that program? I made a mistake, I told the listeners that we had 2 weeks. We had 4 weeks to debate these issues. Now we are scheduled to pass appropriations bills that will keep our Government running and more and more, for some reason, we leave it to everybody here to speculate--the other side continues to offer amendments, be it on the tobacco issue or some other program that has nothing to do with the appropriations process, that delays it and then puts in motion things that actually put the bill in jeopardy. The Senator just spoke and said this was not a budget issue. Let me tell you, it is a budget issue. It is a budget issue to the tune of $100 million being added to the expenditure side of a balanced budget 5-year plan, because under the Budget Act you cannot count taxes against expenditures like this. So we are breaking the budget to the tune of $100 million--$100 million. It seems to this Senator we ought not to be doing that when we just got a 5-year agreement in place. And so it is subject to a point of order. The Senator can say it is technical. I say it is real. In addition, I say this approach of imposing taxes--and this is a tax according to the Congressional Budget Office--should not be taking place on appropriations bills that are already late. Mark my word, the President of the United States will be giving the Republican leadership--he will be saying to them, ``You can't get your work done. You didn't get the appropriations done.'' Let me tell you, this violates the spending caps that we agreed to-- plain and simple. I do not believe we ought to do that on this bill when that chairman spent weeks and weeks in his committee trying to not break the caps. We come along with an amendment, and it sounds nice, sounds kind of sexy politically, but essentially it is reopening the debate that we had for 4 solid weeks here on the Senate floor. Now, for all the reasons I stated, but more important, because the Budget Act so provides, I make a point of order against the pending amendment under section 302(f) of the Budget Act of 1974. Mr. President, let me say, I believe the Senate ought to stand up and say we are not going to break the budget here. We are going to stand on this point of order of substance and deny the efficacy of this amendment because it can't sustain the 60 votes required. I make the point of order and I yield the floor. Motion to waive Budget Act

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2168, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill for 1999. This bill provides new budget authority of $93.9 billion and new outlays of $54.5 billion to finance the programs of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and other independent agencies. I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for producing a bill that complies with the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is a one of the most difficult bills to manage with its varied programs and challenging allocation, but I think the bill meets most of the demands made of it while not exceeding its budget and is a strong candidate for enactment. So I commend my friend the chairman for his efforts and leadership. When outlays from prior-year BA and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $91.9 billion in BA and $102.4 billion in outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays, for both defense and nondefense. I ask members of the Senate to refrain from offering amendments which would cause the subcommittee to exceed its budget allocation and urge the speedy adoption of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. At least measure before we do it. I commend you again, Senator Lugar. You have done it a number of times before. We have been here a long time together. I regret, even though the color of your hair might indicate to the contrary, I have been here longer than you. Nonetheless, we have been here a long time together. I do compliment you because every now and then when things are confused, you make up for that and come up with something like this. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not intend to delay matters at all. Whenever the chairman is ready to go, I certainly won't be on my feet. I want to rise and congratulate Senator Lugar and those who helped put his amendment together. I am a cosponsor, but I don't take credit for any of the innovation and thoroughness of this work. I just want to say on a very personal note that every now and then when you see things out in our country or in the world sort of mixed up, and you see mixed signals, you wonder just what is our country doing, and somebody like Dick Lugar comes along and makes sense out of something that appears to be just a mess. There can be no question, whatever support there is in this body for sanctions--and clearly they must be an instrument, a tool--whatever support there is for that concept does not mean our country ought to be living under a ``quilt'' of sanctions, many of which are just bilateral between us and some country, when we already know that many of them don't work or they work to our detriment. Here we sit today with an emerging crisis in agriculture, probably mostly from the Asian flu; that is, from the failure in the Asian markets because of their banking systems falling apart, and those people can't buy the products they were buying. Nonetheless, when we added Pakistan for something they did, which we were all worried about, and they depended upon our grain and that kind of product to feed their people, obviously American agriculture is hurting. Now, there are some who would like to make it that the new legislation creating an open market at some time in the future, a totally free and open market, is the cause of the problem. That is not the cause. The cause is that America's trading in foodstuffs and products from our farms is not working as well as it should because we have done something that is harming it, or failed to do some things that would cause it to work better. Let me repeat one more time, why in the world are we still holding up IMF? If we want to reform it, why don't we reform it and pass it? There is hardly anybody in agriculture or American industry that hires our people that doesn't think we ought to do that. Now, Senator Lugar would like to do that. That isn't what he is doing here today. He is doing the next best thing. If that isn't a prescriptive manner, postmanner, trying to get rid of some of the nonsense of the unilateral, bilateral and multilateral situations that we have where we say we can't sell countries our product. Why don't we get on with fast track? If you want to talk about what would help our farmers, that is what would help. Get America's trade markets open so they can sell their products. Obviously, what we are doing here today is a very rational, sensible approach to a very, very, confused set of policies which are not working to America's benefits, which we can pass and then sit back and say we did something. Isn't that great; we did something. We never measured it. I gather the new guidelines will ask us to at least measure before we do it; is that correct, Senator Lugar?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to anyone listening to this debate, you would think that those who want the big spending bill that is in the guise of helping children stop smoking--you would think they have not had an opportunity on the floor of the Senate to present their case. If one would take this discussion and say that is the only discussion we have had on the so-called cigarette tax bill, that would be one thing. But my recollection, without checking the record, is that we have debated this issue for 4 weeks. Is that not correct, I ask the chairman of the subcommittee? Four weeks of floor time, with scores of amendments and so many hours of debate that I am assuming even the American people who watch C-SPAN wondered, ``How much longer are you going to discuss this?'' Now we come to the floor on an appropriations bill that everybody knows has to be passed and signed by October 1 or we close down all of agriculture in America, and up comes the cigarette bill and a debate starts: ``The Republicans don't want to let us vote.'' I don't know anything about the lack of ability to amend the amendment, but I do know this. This amendment is for real in terms of its budgetary impacts. As a matter of fact, if this were on the bill when it came out of committee, it would be subject to a point of order and the whole bill would fall. That is how important it is, because it overspends what is allocated to the Subcommittee on Agriculture by $8 billion. I wonder how many eight billions of dollars over the allocation which keeps this new balance we can have around here? Can we have eight or nine of them this year and say, ``It is such wonderful legislation that we just ought to break the rules of the budget?'' I will acknowledge the Budget Act says you can waive the Budget Act, so I am not critical of those who try to waive it. But I am wondering whether or not, when we wrote that Budget Act and said you can waive it, whether we had in mind breaking a 5-year balanced budget that was in place for the first time in 40 years because along came some legislation that people thought was very, very interesting and important? Let me repeat. There are some who are going to say this is just a procedural vote, it isn't meaningful, and Republicans have pulled this out of the bag like a rabbit pulled out by some kind of a person that pulls tricks. There is nothing to that. Mr. President, $8 billion is a lot of money. I think the American people understand $8 billion. And this is $8 billion in new direct spending that will be charged to this subcommittee on its agricultural bill for all of agricultural programs, including research, in the United States. It could cause the bill to fail so that those on the other side of the aisle can have yet another chance to debate an issue which has been debated for 4 weeks. Mr. President, I am glad the majority leader raised the point of order under the Budget Act. It is absolutely right. It is correct. It is substantive. As a matter of fact, had he not raised it, there would have been a chorus of Senators here to raise it because it is so patently in violation of the 5-year budget agreement that we just entered into last year wherein we told the American people it is a first in 38 years and how proud we are that we are in balance. Then along comes the President who says don't spend a nickel of the surplus on anything but Social Security. Then we come with bills like this, and there goes $8 billion of the surplus here. I don't know what is going to happen on the next bill when they have more of this. So, frankly, I believe we ought to sustain the point of order. I repeat, it is real, it is fair, and it is timely. They have had, those who want this gigantic $875 billion new expenditure plan over the next 25 years--that is what the bill before us, the big bill, was-- anyone who wants that, they had their debates for 4 weeks and lost. Do we want to start over again on an appropriations bill? And then who is going to be claiming we didn't get our business done, we couldn't get the appropriations finished by October 1? Who is going to be doing that? The President and the minority party. And this is just one more instance where it is their fault we don't get it done, not our fault. We ought to pass this appropriations bill and do this in due course if there is another opportunity presented by the Senate. If not, they have had their day in court, it seems to me. I yield the floor.