Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be managing the bill for the majority and the Subcommittee of Appropriations on Energy and Water Development. I understand that the minority will not consent to any amendments being laid down tonight. So we will just have opening statements, and then I gather we will take the matter up at the earliest opportunity in the morning and proceed until we finish. I might suggest, unless there are some amendments I am unaware of-- and that could be the case--that there is a real possibility that we could finish this bill tomorrow. We would very much like to do that. That would mean Thursday night we would finish. If that doesn't happen, then we may have a complication with reference to the manager and ranking member, which might carry the bill over for a considerable number of days. I want to give a few opening remarks about the bill. First, I thank my ranking member, Senator Reid. This is a very difficult bill and, in many respects, contains some very, very serious, substantive matters for America and some very important defense policies with reference to nuclear weapons, our stockpile, and the like. We have worked very handily together, and I am proud of the bill we have before us. This bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on Appropriations last Thursday and was filed on Friday. It has been available to Senators since Monday. The committee recommendation provides a total of $20.9 billion in budget authority. Of that, $12 billion is defense and $8.9 billion is nondefense. Especially within the nondefense allocation, the committee has struggled to craft a recommendation that meets the Senate's expectations. The President's request for water projects was $1.8 billion below the level required to continue ongoing construction projects at their optimal level. If we were to truly fix that problem to provide the level of funding of water projects Congress envisioned when it enacted the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, which the President signed, and last year's Energy and Water Development Act, which the President signed, the committee would have to shift $1.8 billion from other programs within nondefense, which is only $8.9 billion of the entire bill. We would have to move that to the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Now, Mr. President, when the President of the United States decided to reduce water projects by $1.8 billion, let me suggest that these are flood protection projects in many, many States. These are dams and reservoirs that have been under construction. These consist of work on channeling our ports. And, yes, there is money that was obligated to build our ports so that they could continue to carry the vast commerce that comes in and out of the United States through these ports. Much of the port activity--draining and the like, dredges--is paid for by the Federal Government. And the President decided that he had priorities in water, and he wanted us to pay for those and give dramatic increases. But when it came to all those projects that are all over our country that other Members appropriated last year and that the President signed, those were knocked out. Mr. President, that is just not the way to do business. It is all right if the President wants to cut things, but to do it like that and then ask for his special projects to be increased as if they are the only ones that are deserving of any increase, and all the rest of our States and our ports of entry are supposed to be cut, just doesn't make sense. So, actually, we are going to have a little difficulty when we go to conference in that part of the bill which is called nondefense. That includes water projects, plus nondefense research projects within the Department of Energy--some very important research projects. That much of a reduction would be impossible to impose on the Department of Energy's science, energy, research, and environmental management programs. Fortunately, to reduce our need to cut these programs, Chairman Stevens provided the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee with $238 million in nondefense budget authority above a freeze. The committee recommendation is to use all of that increase and an additional $211 million taken from a freeze level within the Department of Energy to add to water projects. I just explained why he wants to do that. Even at that, Senators have been very understanding, because it means two things for all the Senators and their projects. We have been able to provide between 60 percent and 70 percent of the optimal funding level for water project construction, and our baseline for the Department of Energy was a freeze, and we had to go below that. As an example, the administration proposed a $90 million increase, $26 million over last year, for solar and renewable energy. We are working with two of our Senators who want to amend what we have done in this bill. Let me just explain what we have done. Regardless of any individual's view on solar and renewable energy, the subcommittee does not have resources to provide the kind of increase that the President had in mind. The recommendation for solar and energy is a $780,000 reduction from the current level--that is what we have in our bill--and that is because we have to cut below a freeze in this part of this bill. As usual, the subcommittee has received requests for thousands of individual projects. To the best of our ability, we have tried to include those in the water area where requests were generally well founded requests to provide adequate funding for ongoing projects. Unfortunately, because the reductions apply to DOE's nondefense program, there is very little flexibility to add projects within budgets that are already being cut. For a specific recommendation--but before I do that--I am not sure that I will deliver my entire summary--I want to yield the floor and ask if my ranking member desires to make some comments at this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to proceed for a few minutes and then ask we move off of this bill and go into morning business. Mr. President, within the Department of Energy's nondefense accounts we have placed a priority on science. Our recommendation is only $44.9 million below the request, most of which is taken from prior year balances that can be used to offset fiscal year 1999 expenses. We are recommending proceeding with the construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. When it is completed, it will be one of America's most significant research tools, and it will add to the versatility and diversity of that great laboratory. We have also provided funds for the administration's requests for new nuclear energy programs and have provided a slight increase for the magnetic fusion energy account, just enough to bring it up to current levels. We provided three additional nuclear research programs that we believe are absolutely urgent. The bill includes a total of $11.9 billion for the atomic energy defense activities. That is $269 million below the budget request. This bill contains $1.048 billion for defense facilities cloture projects. The largest increase is $32 million for Rocky Flats, that project which was significantly underfunded in the budget. Accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats will save an estimated $1 billion, which would then be available for other cleanup work. So it is important that the schedule at Rocky Flats be maintained as much as possible. In other defense activities, one of my highest personal goals is to destroy excess weapons plutonium in the United States and Russia. I believe it is the key to permanent nuclear arms control. The administration is on a path to begin to fabricate into mixed- oxide fuels, 3 tons of U.S. weapons plutonium per year and is tentatively working to aid Russia to fabricate 1.3 tons per year into mixed-oxide fuel. I think both countries should destroy in the order of 10 tons per year. But more than that, we have to ensure that Russia destroys at least as much weapons plutonium as we do because they have many times as much as we do. Anything else amounts to unequal disarmament. So my recommendation is to provide for a full amount of the request, but make a portion of it contingent upon bilateral accords which require at least equal conversion of weapons grade plutonium in the United States and the Soviet Union. Mr. President, just one last closing remark, and perhaps we will have to talk about this more tomorrow. But I note, many Senators' offices have had lobbyists come to see them about what is in this bill and what is now called Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship. Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship is an American plan to use the highest of science, technology and computers to measure the efficacy and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons; that is, to determine if they will do what they are supposed to do, if they are safe, trustworthy and sound. If someone wants to come to the floor and suggest the $4.46 billion which goes to this Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship should be reduced because it is a lot of money, let me just suggest when the United States of America decided that we would no longer do underground testing, which is one of the methods to determine the validity of our nuclear weapons and of that stockpile--since we do not build any new ones, we are only talking about old ones--if you want to return to underground testing, you probably can get by with less money for Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship, because it takes the place, in a sense, of underground tests as part of the verification of the value of the nuclear weapons, in terms of trustworthiness, accountability, and the like. So, for those who do not want to give the scientists and the laboratory directors the tools so they can certify our supply of nuclear weapons every year to the President of the United States as required by law--first to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and then to the President--if you don't want to give them the money to do that, then let's have an amendment on the floor and see if we are going to return to underground testing. I do not believe anyone wants to do that, at least not enough Senators. So we have to proceed doing it through science, through new ways to x-ray, in a sense, what is in these weapons through computerization, which is going to be improved dramatically for America and the world as part of this process so we can use the vast models and research capacity of computers to do this job. The day may come when we do not have any nuclear weapons. But for now, Russia still has a lot of nuclear weapons. Within the last month and a half, we have heard about two more nuclear powers. I believe that we have to maintain ours in a solid, ready, trustworthy state, and reduce them as much as possible, consistent with the risks to the United States. That is the kinds of things in this bill--very, very important. I must say, all of that money comes out of the Defense Department. So, when you look at the defense moneys for America, you must understand that about $14 billion of it goes to this committee for the nuclear activities and the laboratories that produce and do the nuclear research for us, and for the maintenance of the stockpile. It is very important everybody understand that. That money cannot be spent anywhere else. It is subject to the walls that we have put up around defense spending so you cannot spend it for nondefense work, you cannot spend it for water projects, and I am very, very thankful you cannot. If those walls come down, you will see the pressure for domestic spending eat away at defense needs, including the defense needs as depicted in this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself a half a minute. We say the taxes do not count as taxes--that is what the bill says-- and the expenditures do not count as expenditures. Now, how in the world could that not be subject to the Budget Act if we have any kind of budget restraint at all? So that is the issue. The issue is: Do you proceed with the bill or do you send it back to committee and let them try to fix it so it does not violate the Budget Act, which we spent 20 years developing around here to get our house in order? And all of a sudden, over 25 years, $998 billion worth of new revenues and expenditures are supposed to be forgotten about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the 40 seconds to Senator Nickles.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the Senator from Alaska has yielded me control of the time, and I will manage the time. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes at this point. Mr. President, let me make a point first for everybody here. The Budget Act which was passed, with Republicans voting for it and three Democrats, the budget resolution, did three things that we have already forgotten about. One, it provided a $15.5 billion increase for NIH over the baseline, over the President's request; $15.5 billion without this bill goes to NIH for cancer research and the kind of things this bill is supposed to do. Secondly, the budget resolution provided $800 million--eight-tenths of a billion dollars--for teen smoking cessation. The President of the United States asked for less than that. The same budget resolution provides $5 billion for child care, and we are up here debating a bill to impose over the next 25 years $998 billion worth of new taxes, and we are talking like we haven't done anything in these areas that the very bill before us says we are supposed to do. Frankly, whether the other side is saying we killed this bill or not, I guarantee you, the bill was subject to a point of order before any of the amendments were attached. So an argument that Republicans added amendments and thus made it subject to a point of order is--it is subject to at least five points of order, and, as a matter of fact, the underlying bill is subject to the worst of all points of order. It kills the bill. That is how bad the bill is in terms of budgets. It kills the bill. We didn't make that point of order. The point of order that was made is one that says it goes back to the committee and they reconsider. Let me tell you, when you work on budgets and you all vote and you want to restrain Government spending, all the Budget Act says to you, once you made the deal and said this is the budget, if you want to violate it, you can. It does not say you cannot. It says you can. But you need 60 votes. That is what this argument is about. If you want to say we ought to pass this bill, it violates the Budget Act. It has far more spending than we agreed to spend. And let me tell you, another portion of this just absolutely says, here are the caps, the spending restraints, and we just do not care about them.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Forty seconds?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't intend this afternoon to repeat much of the explanation which was made by the distinguished senior Senator from Texas but I just will emphasize it as I see it. First of all, it is very important to me that when we articulate an American policy and say we are for this or we are for that, that sooner, rather than later, we look at what our laws are and see if we can make them match the policy that we would like for our country. No. 1, everybody on the Senate floor, it seems to me, from time to time has been concerned about families in America. Obviously, the marriage tax penalty works against families, because if a married couple with two or three children are penalized to the extent of $1,400 a year in taxes that they pay--just because they are married, which they would not pay if they had their exact same earnings and filed separately or were not married--that is clearly an American policy out of step with a profamily position of the United States and certainly of this Senator and most Senators I associate with in the U.S. Senate. Secondly, maybe it isn't articulated as precisely as the previous one tenet of philosophy, but I say we, as a nation, ought to espouse marriage and we ought to look with favor upon the relationship that is called marriage historically and traditionally. As my friend from Texas says, of all the institutions around, it seems to be that marriage is the one that has endured. It also seems to be one that when marriage does not endure or work properly it causes a lot of other problems within a family and throughout society. So to put an extra tax on that institution is wrong. In the United States of America, 24 million married couples have endured and paid through the nose because of this marriage penalty. I don't think they really thought when they said, ``I do,'' that they were also saying, ``and we shall pay.'' I don't believe that is what they thought they were doing when they took their marriage vows. The average penalty is about $1,400. I think everybody knows what an average means. Plenty of couples are paying much more. Obviously, there are plenty paying somewhat less. In my State of New Mexico, 203,00 New Mexican families will be helped by this change. We are a State with just a little bit over 1,600,000 people. That is a pretty significant benefit we are passing on to people who are married and raising families, and both spouses are working. By way of an aside, the second portion of our bill has to do with businesses that are self-employed people. Let me just give you that number. In New Mexico, 222,000 businesses are going to find that health insurance is going to be available to them now and be more affordable because under this provision they are going to be able to deduct the entire health cost, as do corporations and as do many others that are not self-employed. So if anybody is interested in how we got into this mess with the marriage penalty, I will put in some facts about it later. Obviously, this has come about with each major change we have made in the Tax Code, either to phase something out or to phase something in. There are about 63 provisions in the code, where couples are penalized for being married. The standard deduction and the progressive tax brackets are two of the major contributors to the marriage penalty. So many of these provisions in the code vary, as I indicated, with marital status. The provision that primarily is responsible for the marriage penalty, the standard deduction for married filing jointly, is not two times the standard deduction for filing if you are single. That is the major reason that we have a problem. Having said that, I want to relate this proposal to the bill that is before us. Every time we discuss a budget of the United States, or the economy of the United States, somebody talks about--and quite properly--what the level of taxation on the American people is. It is relevant to America's future, in my opinion and in the opinion of most economists looking at our country, that our tax on the American people, the total tax, be at the lowest possible level. Now, this bill before us, whatever its other interests are, is a very large tax imposition on the American people. Although it is not paid by everybody, you add it to the myriad of other taxes, and then you find out America is paying a higher total tax level than it was before this bill was passed. So, to me, it is very simple. If this is a tax bill--and clearly there are many people who want to spend every penny of it on some kind of program. In spite of a budget that said we would not spend any more, there are scores of programs on which people would like to spend money. It seems to me that the forgotten people would be the taxpayers who would get no benefit unless we reduce taxes and charge the reduction to the tax income coming under this bill. I think it is very logical and very reasonable--$16 billion in the first 5 years, $30 billion in the second 5 years, coming from the taxes raised in this bill from cigarettes. It will ultimately come from consumers. People think the tobacco companies are paying, but actually it will be added to the price of cigarettes and consumers will pay it. We are saying give $16 billion back to the taxpayers and $30 billion back in the form of these two tax reductions over ten years. That is a third of the tax take in the first 5 years and about 37 or 38 percent in the second 5 years. Under the bill, about 40 percent of the program goes to the States. I am not sure I favor that much going to the States, but we are not amending that provision here. That is to be considered at another time if the Senate wants to consider it. But so long as the states are expected to get 40 percent of the overall trust fund, Senator Gramm and I have agreed we won't offer any more tax cuts. But if indeed that 40 percent is reduced and we attempt to take some of that money back to the Federal Government and spend it, then obviously we reserve the right to offer some additional tax rebates or reductions or reforms at that time. I am hopeful that the Senate will adopt this amendment. There may be other tax measures, but I think essentially we are going to be separating Senators into two groups--Group One: Those Senators who want to spend all the money and group two who are Senators who want to give some of it back to the people. That is the issue. Do you want to give some of this back to the people, or do you want to spend it all for one program or regime or another that costs money, or a series of programs by which we give money back to the States for them to spend it? I think the American people are going to judge us very, very precisely on this and I don't think the judgment is going to be a difficult one. They are pretty astute. When we have just crowed about a balanced budget with caps on expenditures and we come and say now we found a new source of revenue, all those ideas about keeping Government under control can go out the window. We will spend all of this on new programs. I think they will understand very easily. They will focus quickly that those who vote no on this amendment will be saying they want to spend all the money; those who vote yes on this amendment are saying we ought to give some of it back to the American taxpayer--in this case, to that huge number of Americans who are married, with both couples working, wherein they are being penalized by the adverse effect of our tax laws, and that they must pay a penalty for being married and for earning a living and filing jointly. I am rather confident this is the right approach. Why do we stop at $50,000 worth of wage earnings? I will agree that is just an arbitrary number. But we can't fix everything in one bill. If there is a tax bill this year--and there probably will be one--I would think high on the list would be to repair the marital tax problem so the higher brackets of earners are entitled to receive that benefit also. I thank Senator Gramm for his untiring efforts on behalf of this. It is a privilege to work with him. I believe we will have a victory today. I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect an amount of budget authority provided that s the dollar equivalent of the Special Drawing Rights with respect to: (1) an increase in the United States quota as part of the International Monetary Fund Eleventh General Review of Quotas (United States Quota); and (2) any increase in the maximum amount available to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as amended from time to time (New Arrangements to Borrow). Section 203 of H. Con. Res. 84, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 1998, allows the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect new budget authority and outlays provided for the renewal of expiring contracts for tenant- and project-based housing assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. I hereby submit a revision to the budget authority aggregates for fiscal year 1998 contained in section 101 of H. Con. Res. 84 in the following amounts: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current aggregates................................. 1,405,438,000,000 Adjustments........................................ -20,208,000,000 Revised aggregates................................. 1,385,230,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hereby submit revisions to the 1998 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current allocation: Defense discretionary.......... 260,000,000,000 266,823,000,000 Nondefense discretionary....... 270,075,000,000 283,293,000,000 Violent crime reduction fund... 5,500,000,000 3,592,000,000 Mandatory...................... 277,312,000,000 278,725,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note Senator Stevens is on the floor desiring to speak. Might I ask, is he on a short timeframe? Does he want to speak now?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am sorry I went over. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. At 12:30; I hope I don't take that long. Mr. President, I wish I could have been on the floor when Senator Gramm spoke a little earlier, because I would have risen when he stated what we ought to try to do and what components we ought to try to agree upon to get a bill. I think he is right on. For those who were not listening, let me see if I can repeat. First of all, let me suggest, in the past--I have noticed that we get large groups of lobbyists in a room promoting causes in only two circumstances. One, when there is a giant tax bill or tax reform measure, the halls are lined with them. That prompted Senator Dole, once, to speak of the ``Gucci gultch.'' The only other time I see a large group in a room joined together lobbying, sending notes, watching television, is when there is a huge amount of money to spend. I have not seen large groups for any other causes. Guess what. In this case, it is obvious. The proponents of the bill have nothing in mind for tax cuts. So this large group meeting, with just scores of people watching every speech on the Senate floor and then sending people out to all the offices to get things done is because this is a giant spending bill. There is no one more concerned about what is happening to young people and tobacco than I am. I was a smoker for a long time. I didn't start when I was a youngster, however. Fortunately, for me, I quit. It has been 8 or 9 years--I can't remember--and I am very lucky. I have a large group of wonderful children and not a single one smokes. My wife doesn't smoke. I can hardly imagine what a burden I was on them when I had these cigarettes around all the time. I even remember the chairman of the Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Chiles, who had to sit there while I smoked through all these markups. He bought me one of those suction machines. I would have to put my cigarettes on it and then it would suck up all the smoke. At least, he said, I could make it through these 10- to 12-hour markups. But, frankly, if we knew how to make our children quit smoking with $150 billion, and we said that is going to really keep them off cigarettes, and cancer rates are going to come down and the adult population is going to imitate the kids and they are going to stop smoking--because we have not talked about adults. I mean, they are smoking, too. As a matter of fact, those in the health business of the United States and health care--clearly something admirable and something we are all concerned about--they are the lobbyists for this bill. They all started off with something in mind. They had their pet projects, and everybody would talk about them as if they were related to teenage smoking. Everybody would come to the floor and speak about the statistics on teenagers smoking and talk about ``that is what we were here for,'' while the provision of the bill that had to do with teenage smoking is about one fiftieth of the bill in terms of pages. The rest of it is programs, programs we are supposed to fund and money we are supposed to give back to the States. I wonder how many Senators know that of the amount we give back to the States, we tell them how to spend at least half of it. When you look at the list, one wonders what the different programs the States are going to spend the money on have to do with teenage smoking. They have nothing to do with it. But it is suggested the Governors chose the programs--and they ought to have the right to--and we ought to comport with it and say ``that is all you can use it for,'' because, after all, they spent so much State tax money taking care of those people in their States who got lung cancer and were hospitalized, and had these very large treatment expenditures that came out of Medicaid. Let me tell you, it is absolutely amazing that we are so willing to put a huge portion--40 percent--of what we are supposed to take in under this bill to compensate the States for health care costs when the big health care costs were actually paid for by the U.S. Government taxpayers and the U.S. Government, because Medicare and Medicaid, in particular Medicare, is an Federal program, not a State program. This bill doesn't put a penny in it. It is still going bankrupt because of the enormous drag on that program of more than $25 billion a year for cancer-related smoking diseases. Medicaid, I know in my State, is paid for 75 percent by the Federal Government. Some States were 50; some States were 65. I think it is more than logical that a very large portion of anything we get here, if we put this together, should either go back to the taxpayers or will go back to the U.S. Government to help defray the expenses that we put into programs, like Medicare, which tax the American working men and women in a very, very regressive manner. Having said that, I believe, and I state publicly right here today, that I think a bill can be put together. I am not sure that it isn't too late for many because they are already part of the group that wants to spend all this money on all these different programs that are supposed to be directed at our children smoking, but I believe there ought to be a part of this program that goes back to the States. I don't know that there has to be 40 percent, and I don't know that it has to be for the programs that are dictated in this bill for the States. I also believe there ought to be a major antismoking and antidrug component to this bill, and it ought to be rather substantial. I certainly compliment the distinguished Senator from Georgia for the amendment that he has which brings front and center an even more disastrous habit which is catching on with our teenagers, more disastrous than smoking, and that has to do with illegal and illicit drugs from marijuana to the hard stuff, to cocaine. Now, the new surge is even something different from cocaine. We thought we were doing some good in that regard. Now heroin is back in vogue and use is growing. I compliment Senators Coverdell and Craig for offering this amendment. If we decided to give back to the States some but not necessarily as much money as this bill says, if we had a major program in illegal drug prevention akin to the amendment which the distinguished Senator from Georgia and his cosponsor, Senator Craig, have put before us, and then we did something for research through the NIH, or related, and gave the taxpayers of this country a break, especially those who are going to see the very onerous cost of cigarettes impinge on their lives because cigarettes may be as high as $3.50 to $4.50 a pack, if a bill like this passes, collecting a rather substantial amount of money--and I believe any bill ought to have a component which says let's reduce taxes, and since almost everybody on both sides of the aisle--maybe we quibble over details--but everybody knows the most antifamily, antichildren provision of the Tax Code is the one that punishes families who have two members working for a living as compared to two single people making the same amount--the marriage penalty. It is antifamily, it is antichildren, and clearly, that ought to be fixed. This is a rare opportunity to do that. If we can come together on a stripped-down bill that got rid of a lot of the things in this bill that really are not necessary and are not directly related to the problem at hand, we might make some headway. I also remind everyone that whenever any of us come here and say let's not pass a brand new major tax-and-spend bill under the nomenclature and title of helping our children quit smoking--Secretary Shalala said that if, indeed, the FDA regulations that they propose could be put in effect--and I will add, if they are constitutional-- that they alone have been predicted by the Administration to reduce smoking by 50 percent in 7 years. That is a rather significant proposal and a rather significant assessment by an administration about teenage smoking. Why are we in such a hurry to put this big tax on and spend it for all these other things under the emphasis--I think ill-placed emphasis--that we are helping people quit smoking, when if we just tried those FDA regulations, if they are constitutional, they would restrain it by 50 percent in 7 years? I doubt we would achieve a higher goal even if we enact this huge tax and spend bill. In fact, I am not at all sure that we will do better. If you look around the country, as I have in my home State, New Mexico recently completed, I say to my friend from Georgia, a drug, alcohol, and tobacco use survey of public high school students around the State of New Mexico. Not surprising, cigarette use has increased slightly. It is now 54 percent at the 12th grade level. In 1993, it was 47. What is more shocking about the results of the survey is how much illegal drug use has increased in the past 5 years. In my State--I was looking at the chart which Senator Coverdell used--and in my State, marijuana use by 12th graders is up 38 percent; cocaine is up 144 percent; and 51 percent of the students in New Mexico who smoke marijuana said they got it from friends at school. We know that drug use often correlates with illegal behavior. I said ``often,'' I didn't say ``always.'' Sixty-three percent of the kids detained in New Mexico's juvenile justice system for violent behavior reported they used drugs on a weekly basis prior to their arrests. So nationally, the statistics are no more encouraging, and the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, has stated those in his emphasis as to why we ought to adopt his amendment. I support that amendment because it goes after illegal drug use from a number of fronts, and I am particularly pleased that in addition to promoting an anti-illegal drug use campaign, it does give some additional resources to those who are out there in the trenches fighting this war. I say to Senator Coverdell, I suggest that in the State of New Mexico, a major group of policemen--probably 40 percent of the law enforcement in the State is one police entity--they informed us and put out an article which they really believe there ought to be more money put into law enforcement. Particularly I will tell you what they are very worried about. They are worried about the fact they are going to get stuck with all the black market and illegal sales of tobacco, and they are going to be the ones to go out and enforce it. They truly believe at these prices it is going to be enormous in a State like ours; that it will come across from Mexico and all different places, and they are going to just be besieged. Obviously, I have not thought of a way to help local law enforcement in this bill, but it is not too far-fetched as part of that provision which seeks to help us with reference to the black market, that we ought to give some thought to our local law enforcement people. This afternoon or tomorrow I am going to speak on another subject, but I will say to Senators, I am continually amazed at what I find in this bill as page after page is looked at. I have two reports here. One is called ``Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking,'' 1989. The other is called ``The Health Consequences of Using Smokeless Tobacco, Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General.'' And there is a third report referred to in a provision of this bill that we can't even get the report, so we have only the executive summary of 1986, a report to the Surgeon General. All I want to say about it right now is, believe it or not, there is a provision in this bill--I do not know who wrote it --but it says the burden of proof in the courts of America will be shifted to the tobacco companies with reference to any illness, disease, infirmity, that is reported in any three of these reports--even if it is mentioned. It means all you have to do is go file in the future, file a cookie-cutter lawsuit, and the tobacco company must disprove that your ailment or your disease or your condition came from smoking. This afternoon, or when I get the floor again, I will go through a list of what that is going to mean. I mean, if ever--if ever--there was a lawyers' relief bill, beyond that which we have been discussing in terms of their recompense for the settlements, it is here. We have been looking around for tort reform. And here we have exactly the wrong kind of tort reform. I do not believe very many Senators know that this provision is in this bill. I do not know whether I will try to take it out. I would just like to make sure it is well known. I do not want to leave the impression, and never have, that tobacco companies should not pay for what they have wrought on this society in terms of misleading advertising and the effects of smoking. But to say that three reports that compiles the research of every ailment or disease that has been researched to try and find a causal relationship between that ailment and cigarette smoking should be incorporated by reference in this bill is not a good way to legislate. Under this provision a plaintiff would not have to worry about proving it anymore, just allege it, sue for it, and the tobacco company must then prove that they did not cause it. That provision has been researched of late, and we will talk about it in a little more detail--how many thousands and thousands of lawsuits that would precipitate from people with diseases and ailments who never even gave a thought until now that they might find somebody who would pay for that; namely, the tobacco companies. So I say to those who are very, very well-intentioned, who support this measure, I have said before--and the bill was redone--I said before that it was far too cumbersome, had way too many agencies and bureaus and bureaucratic innovations in it that nobody should really support. It was fixed somewhat. And I still seriously question how it got put together, how these kinds of provisions could find themselves in there with no discussion. To me, this is one bill that I am very glad is taking a long time to get through the Senate. We normally say discussion on the Senate floor is good because it lets everybody understand what is going on and what the issues are. Frankly, I do not think we would have found out about all the things in this bill if we had not been down here for a couple weeks. It is just a very difficult job, very hard to do. So let me summarize. I believe the amendment ought to pass, because if we are going to raise significant money, as purported in this bill, we ought to go after more than just the problems that teenage tobacco smoking brings to our country. We ought to try our best, in a very reasonable and well directed way, to spend money trying to get a better handle on illicit and illegal drug use by our children and, in fact, by the American population. So I hope that passes. I hope cloture is not invoked. But I say that I believe it is beginning to come to the surface that a bill could be put together. It surely cannot be the bill that is before us. As a matter of fact, I think probably it ought to just get redrafted, if people want to put a bill together. Essentially, it ought to take care of the States in some way, not necessarily 40 percent. It ought to have a very significant tax cut, especially for those American families who are going to pay the tobacco tax--pay most of the tobacco tax. If we do that, it ought to be directed at the marriage penalty, perhaps some health related tax provisions, but that ought to take the lead. And we ought to put a major program together in trying to really declare war through advertising and other initiatives to aid in the prevention of smoking among kids. And, as I indicated, it is corollary with reference to illegal drugs. Another component could be research at NIH on cancer and related kinds of research. And that is probably doable in this country. And if you are going to spend some additional money, you can probably justify it there as well as anywhere else, although I would suggest that if you have a big bill like this with a lot of resources, we can bring amendments to the floor, one after another, showing areas where the U.S. Government is not doing what it ought to do in certain areas of endeavor that are our responsibility as a nation. And if it is needed, and doing a better job, we could have a myriad of amendments that we could let people vote on and decide what to do. For instance, I give you one. It is totally unrelated, but some provisions in this bill are also. When will the U.S. Government pay for Indian schools in America?--which are falling down around the kids, totally ill-equipped, are way beyond anything we would have non-Indian kids in in the United States. And the only entity that is supposed to pay for it is the Federal Government. It is not a school board, not a State; it is the Federal Government. There is a backlog of over $750 million. And we are leaving those kids out there, watching the suicide rates go up, watching the illegal drug rate go up, watching all the social problems they have, and every year we take care of one or two schools.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are no time limits, are there, on speeches at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, I am pleased to introduce today what we will call the Route 66 Preservation Act of 1998. Some here in the Senate may recall that I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best way to preserve, commemorate and interpret ``America's Main Street''--Route 66. Public Law 102-400 directed the National Park Service to conduct a study on the impact of that route, that highway on America's culture. The study was completed in 1995, and addressed the feasibility of preserving what remains of the highway and the facilities associated with it through private and public efforts. Most nonprofit Route 66 organizations and other interested parties preferred preservation Alternative 5, asking for national recognition of Route 66 and partnerships between private and public groups for preservation. This bill is based on that alternative, and authorizes 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. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to Santa Monica, CA. The thoroughfare became the first completely paved highway across the United States in 1938. It rolled through Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In my home State of New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants, and Gallup. The Legislation I am introducing today would have the National Park Service designate an ``Office for Preservation of America's Main Street'' with officials from the 8 affected States. The Preservation Office would be authorized to: Support State, local and private efforts to preserve Route 66 by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants and loans; Act as a clearing house for communication among Federal, State, local and private entities interested in the preservation of Route 66; Assist States in determining the appropriation form of a non-Federal entity or entities to perform functions of the Preservation Office once it is terminated 10 years after enactment of this legislation; and, Sponsor a road sign program on Route 66 to be implemented on a cost- sharing basis with State and local organizations. Route 66 is really a modern-day equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. I believe this bill will provide States and local communities a more tangible means of gaining Federal assistance to preserve aspects of Route 66. At one time, Route 66 was the most famous highway in the United States. Now it is fading from the American landscape. If we want to preserve Route 66, it is now time to act. Up to 500,000 Americans--one quarter of all entrants to California during that era--migrated to California from the Dust Bowl on Route 66 from 1935 to 1940. John Steinbeck captured this journey and christened Route 66 the ``Mother Road'' in his classic novel of the Depression: ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' After World War II, another generation of Americans trekked across America on Route 66, not to escape despair, but to embrace economic opportunities in the West. Songwriter Bobby Troup expressed the enthusiasm and sense of adventure of this generation in his song, ``Get Your Kicks on Route 66!'' Route 66 also allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West. Route 66 began to decline with the enactment of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. In 1984, the last federally designated portion of Route 66 was decommissioned when interstate 40 was completed in Arizona. Hopefully, the Senate will join me in once again allowing another generation to ``get its kicks'' on Route 66. The study has been completed, and now it is time to give the Park Service some direction--let them set up a small office for the preservation of Route 66. The bill authorizes partnerships between the private sector, State entities and the Federal Government through existing programs in an effort to preserve various aspects of this rather magnificent American roadway--Route 66. Many songs have been written about it. Many dreams are described by people who lived part of their lives there. Part of the Grapes of Wrath took place on Route 66. I think before all of what remains of America's Main Street disappears, it is a good time to pass this kind of bill and see if we can't preserve parts of it. Much is made of preserving historic things in the United States. It would be a shame, since there are so many people out there who care about this piece of American history and want to try to preserve the remnants of Route 66, if we did not do something now to help them in that effort.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is my first speech in a couple of days. I am sorry. I will yield soon. In fact, I will yield the floor. Mr. President, the point is that nobody can stand up on this floor and say we knew when we started talking about cigarette taxes and how much it would yield precisely how much ought to be spent for some American programs that would help alleviate the smoking problem, or even research more into the cause of cancer and try to cure it. Nobody knows what is the right number, but everybody knows that as much money as this bill will raise is not needed for that. Anybody in their right mind would look at how much is coming in and how much you need to do precisely the kind of things that people say this bill ought to do, and it is not close to the amount of money that is coming in. So that leads you to a conclusion, in my humble opinion, that you ought to give some of this money back to the taxpayers of the country. I cannot believe we are so unconcerned about the taxpayers of this country that we would sort of block off this $700 billion in new revenues--if that is what it is over 25 years--and say, look, the American people and their tax-paying requirements have nothing to do with this new tax imposed on them. Why not? Why do we say that? We are adding to the tax ``take,'' and we give no benefit to the American people for these new taxes we are going to raise. Back to my argument. One way to try to send a message and distinguish between various approaches, which I choose to call tax and spend it all, or another group who would say tax and give some of it back to the American people who already feel, in many instances--and they are right--that they are paying too much in taxes. Now, that is why the Gramm-Domenici amendment is important. I have already stated its precise purpose is to try to ameliorate the negative tax treatment on married couples, both of whom work, from a Tax Code which penalizes that versus the same two people making the same amount of money, but not married, and are part of a family--they pay less. So the purpose is good, but the message is completely different. The message is, when you have this much new revenue, shouldn't you give some of it back to the taxpayers of America? Nobody is going to be able to come to this floor, with our ability to proliferate in producing charts, and tell the American people with any credibility that every single dollar coming in on this tax has a nice precise niche that it should be spent for, all of which is aimed at helping to try to get kids to stop smoking cigarettes. Or I am willing to add one--doing research and trying to prevent the diseases that come from smoking. Take the two together and you could not produce a credible chart showing how every penny in this bill must be spent for that or you are not doing your job. So I believe that, sooner or later, we deserve an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the proposition that I have just described here today. It is very simple. One, do you think you should change the Tax Code as it pertains to the marriage tax penalty and help families and married couples out who are being penalized because of this Tax Code? And, two, do you think that, with this large new tax being imposed, you ought to give about a third of it back to the taxpayers of this country? We want the public to just focus, very simply, on those two issues. This bill will permit us to do both. I have no doubt, Mr. President, that what is left over is more than adequate. In fact, I am not sure I would vote to spend all of the money that is left over for the program described in this bill. Nonetheless, that is not at issue with reference to the Gramm-Domenici amendment. The issue is a simple proposition: Do you think the marriage tax penalty ought to be fixed? Secondly, do you think when you have this huge new tax increase, you ought to give some of it back to the American people? We want to vote on that. That is a way of distinguishing between the feelings of various Senators about a new tax bill that is essentially, in its current form, tax and spend versus another approach that says tax--which may be helpful, we are not sure-- and give some of it back to the American people. Under that is the very interesting proposition that there probably is no fairer thing to do with better, positive American policy than to fix the marriage tax penalty while you are at it. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know where the bill before the Senate goes next, but obviously I have joined with Senator Gramm in trying to make a statement about this bill. In the process of trying to do that, there are many ways to make statements and there are many ways to talk about what is in a bill, what is out of it, what is not in the bill, to argue about what its value is, what its ultimate goal is, and what it might achieve. There is another way, and that is to offer an amendment or amendments. There are a lot of amendments pending. As I indicated, I don't know how many of them are serious. I have five or six myself that I think are serious that in due course I will offer. I would like to discuss, from the standpoint of those who are wondering about the Gramm-Domenici amendment to cut taxes on a very deserving group of Americans, what it is all about. When you raise taxes on anybody in the United States, you have to ask yourself a very fundamental question of what you ought to do with the taxes you raise. Now, if America were undertaxed and we were taxing Americans--be it a cigarette tax that at $1.10 a pack would yield over time $750 to $800 billion, or whether it is an income tax or sales tax--you have to ask yourself, if America is being taxed too much already, shouldn't something very high on the list of considerations for what to do with the increased revenue be a consideration of lowering the taxes on Americans? Obviously, there have been some arguments already, and there will be more about the amendment which we offered which, hopefully, will be modified, that says let's give back some of the taxes we pick up here to Americans who are suffering the penalty of a Tax Code that punishes people for being married and earning a living by both spouses working. For they, in most cases, pay more in taxes than if they both had the identical jobs, at the same annual earnings, and were not married and filing separate returns--one of the most onerous, ill-conceived uses of the Tax Code. How in the world can we run around, as policymakers, and say we favor the family and then add a burden of taxation to spouses, who are part of a family, by taxing them more because they are married and working than if they were single and working? That has to be an absolutely absurd policy in light of the problems we have in this country that are family oriented, and many of them have to do with income of families. Secondly, it is obvious that every cent of a cigarette tax that we all of a sudden came up with and has been debated on the floor as a tax that should be $1.10, maybe $1.50, maybe 75 cents, and then for somebody to come to the floor and assume that whatever the level is, every penny of it ought to be spent for new programs--now, that isn't the way it is said; it is said, new programs to do some great things. Well, I think everything the Government tries to do and spends money on ought to be things we really believe are important things, important aspects, important events, important projects. Now we are reinventing a bunch of new ones, and then we are saying to the States: You spend your money in very specific ways. I don't care who agreed to the ways that we are going to send this money back to the States to be spent, it seems to me the question has to be asked first, How much is needed to direct a program that has a probability of success in terms of making our young people alter their smoking habits and quit smoking? And nobody can say that you need a huge portion of this tax bill to run advertisements on that, to have programs in our schools or wherever to try to inhibit that. That can't come close to spending the amount of money that is in this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, I am pleased to introduce today what we will call the Route 66 Preservation Act of 1998. Some here in the Senate may recall that I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best way to preserve, commemorate and interpret ``America's Main Street''--Route 66. Public Law 102-400 directed the National Park Service to conduct a study on the impact of that route, that highway on America's culture. The study was completed in 1995, and addressed the feasibility of preserving what remains of the highway and the facilities associated with it through private and public efforts. Most nonprofit Route 66 organizations and other interested parties preferred preservation Alternative 5, asking for national recognition of Route 66 and partnerships between private and public groups for preservation. This bill is based on that alternative, and authorizes 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. Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to Santa Monica, CA. The thoroughfare became the first completely paved highway across the United States in 1938. It rolled through Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In my home State of New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants, and Gallup. The Legislation I am introducing today would have the National Park Service designate an ``Office for Preservation of America's Main Street'' with officials from the 8 affected States. The Preservation Office would be authorized to: Support State, local and private efforts to preserve Route 66 by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants and loans; Act as a clearing house for communication among Federal, State, local and private entities interested in the preservation of Route 66; Assist States in determining the appropriation form of a non-Federal entity or entities to perform functions of the Preservation Office once it is terminated 10 years after enactment of this legislation; and, Sponsor a road sign program on Route 66 to be implemented on a cost- sharing basis with State and local organizations. Route 66 is really a modern-day equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. I believe this bill will provide States and local communities a more tangible means of gaining Federal assistance to preserve aspects of Route 66. At one time, Route 66 was the most famous highway in the United States. Now it is fading from the American landscape. If we want to preserve Route 66, it is now time to act. Up to 500,000 Americans--one quarter of all entrants to California during that era--migrated to California from the Dust Bowl on Route 66 from 1935 to 1940. John Steinbeck captured this journey and christened Route 66 the ``Mother Road'' in his classic novel of the Depression: ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' After World War II, another generation of Americans trekked across America on Route 66, not to escape despair, but to embrace economic opportunities in the West. Songwriter Bobby Troup expressed the enthusiasm and sense of adventure of this generation in his song, ``Get Your Kicks on Route 66!'' Route 66 also allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West. Route 66 began to decline with the enactment of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. In 1984, the last federally designated portion of Route 66 was decommissioned when interstate 40 was completed in Arizona. Hopefully, the Senate will join me in once again allowing another generation to ``get its kicks'' on Route 66. The study has been completed, and now it is time to give the Park Service some direction--let them set up a small office for the preservation of Route 66. The bill authorizes partnerships between the private sector, State entities and the Federal Government through existing programs in an effort to preserve various aspects of this rather magnificent American roadway--Route 66. Many songs have been written about it. Many dreams are described by people who lived part of their lives there. Part of the Grapes of Wrath took place on Route 66. I think before all of what remains of America's Main Street disappears, it is a good time to pass this kind of bill and see if we can't preserve parts of it. Much is made of preserving historic things in the United States. It would be a shame, since there are so many people out there who care about this piece of American history and want to try to preserve the remnants of Route 66, if we did not do something now to help them in that effort.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2133 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to just take a couple minutes to express my respects for Senator Barry Goldwater. I was unable to attend the services yesterday with Senators. I was just getting over a very bad chest cold, and I decided that I would try to recoup a little here. I wish I could have been there. Senator Goldwater was obviously an unflinching patriot whose life, in many ways, mirrored the American experience. He was rugged, independent, and unarguably his own man. I am deeply saddened by his passing. When I first arrived as a freshman Senator, Senator Goldwater offered me encouragement, and when I became budget chairman, provided inspiration when I first tackled the tough budget issues we faced in the early 1980s. He was a dedicated American and Senator, always willing to fight the tough battles. I was better for his fine support and his wise counsel. ``Barry Goldwater cared deeply about America. He believed that our Nation must always remain strong and that Government should stay off the backs of our people and not stifle their innovative spirit. As an American, he never shied away from honestly stating his beliefs; and as a politician, he led by example, not by polls. He will be greatly missed. And Nancy and I send our sympathies and prayers to his family. U.S. Senator Barry Morris Goldwater, born in Phoenix AZ., Jan. 1, 1909, was elected to the Senate from Arizona in 1952, and later was defeated in his bid for the Presidency in 1964 by Lyndon Johnson. Senator Goldwater served in the Senate until retirement in 1987. I served with Senator Goldwater. He took me under his wing when I first arrived in the Senate, and he was a good counsel. The first year I was the chairman of the Budget Committee was 1981. After the Senate finished the budget bill Senator Goldwater sent me a letter that I would like to have printed in the Record. He would dictate these notes himself and they sound just like him. He was an inspiration to us all and a very, very fine man. He will be missed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I cherish from Senator Goldwater after my first appearance on the floor managing the budget bill be printed in the Record. In his own manner, he would go back to the office frequently and dictate a brief letter. This is one of those, which he gave to me in 1981, as I started down this long process trying to balance the U.S. budget. He gave me a little encouragement and enthusiasm. I thought it might be good to just show what kind of person he was to younger Senators like myself back in 1981, along with all the things I wanted to say.