Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Right.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just see if we can get an agreement that you and I have spoken to. I say to the Senator, are you going to speak on the subject that is before us? Or do you just want consent to speak on a subject not pertaining to the budget for 5 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Did you have a request?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I call up amendment No. 2251.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am going to call up the Faircloth amendment with reference to the marriage penalty, and then we are going to stack four votes which will include two Democrat votes and two Republican votes. In order to get the second Republican vote, I would have to have Senator Craig offer a second one so we would have two. And that would make the votes be on two Democrat and two Republican amendments. Is that acceptable? All right. If you have another one that is ready--Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.

Mr. DOMENICI. We will stack the vote as soon as we can for three votes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I make the point of order that the amendment of the distinguished Senator, Senator Hollings, is out of order under the Budget Act. It is not germane.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, unless my friend from New Jersey desires to speak, I will not use my entire 15 minutes. I will make a point of order that the Senator's amendment violates the Budget Act and requires 60 votes. Frankly, I do not understand what the distinguished Senator is talking about. He has been a longtime friend, and he has been on the Budget Committee. He has served on it. Actually, the Budget Committee is the source of the firewall that protects Social Security now. This amendment says he is taking away our jurisdiction, that we can't do anything with reference to Social Security, and we are the committee to make the recommendations. If, indeed, the recommendations in some other provision of law requires 60 votes to pass, that is a different thing. To say to a committee of jurisdiction that you cannot pass on anything because there is a supermajority requirement just seems to me that we could take every committee of jurisdiction, we could take away their jurisdiction all under the rubric that we are trying to keep them from spending money. Maybe we don't like Commerce. They have been putting out too many bills. So we adopt a process that says whatever your jurisdiction is, you can't report out any bills without a supermajority in these different areas. That is not right. The Senator apparently has some great goal in mind. I remind the U.S. Senate and my friend Senator Hollings, he does not like us to use the word ``balance,'' that we are in balance. So every time we use it, we better say the ``unified budget is in balance.'' Let's acknowledge that only 6 years ago, 5 years ago, if he is worried about Social Security, the unified budget was $300 billion in the red. Have we made any headway in keeping the Social Security trust fund from getting spent? Of course. For starters, we have made $300 billion worth, and right now we have a $10 billion surplus. That does not mean we have a surplus without the Social Security trust fund, but it means that we are borrowing $10 billion less from the Social Security fund because of the balance in the unified budget of the United States. Is that bad? That seems to me to be good. If some think that they can wipe out the nonunified deficit quicker, then there are only two ways to wipe it out quicker: One is to cut more expenditures or to raise taxes. That is what somebody has to be talking about if they want to make us stop the $90 billion worth of borrowing, which used to be more, and it is down from $100 billion to $90 billion this very year because of the surplus. Instead of talking about the Budget Committee doesn't have any jurisdiction without supermajorities to move anything with reference to Social Security--all we are doing is making recommendations to the Senate. To act as if this will in some way make the Social Security trust fund more solvent, frankly, in all honesty, I just don't understand how this is going to do any good, and I have not heard anything from the Senator yet that indicates that it will do anything good. In all respect, I just do not believe it is going to accomplish what the Senator wants. Social Security is not going to be any more protected, and we are just going to say that there is a 60-vote point of order against anything the Budget Committee would do with reference to recommending Social Security changes or reforms, which just seems to me doesn't have anything to do with the problems that he describes because we are still borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. I repeat, we are doing a lot better than we were 5 years ago, 6 years ago, and a lot better than we expected to do. That means Social Security is getting closer and closer to a stable state because the unified budget is getting more and more surplus, which the surplus is for now being applied to that debt, and we are borrowing less, which is now easy to understand. There is all kind of confusion. There are trust funds, IOUs. But the truth is, on paper, we are borrowing $10 billion less when we have a surplus than otherwise. If it gets up to $100 billion, we won't be borrowing anything. That is pretty good, and that is reality. The Budget Committee had something to do with that. There is a firewall that does not permit us to spend any Social Security money that would, in any way, affect the actuarial soundness of the Social Security system. That is a firewall of 60 votes. That was recommended by the Budget Committee. If we put that in before and came to the floor, it would require 60 votes to become law. It doesn't seem to me that is right. When the time has expired, I will make a point of order and then we will have a vote and try to stack it as early as possible so we can dispose of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. So he has 1 minute-plus left.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time has Senator Hollings used?

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to follow up on the remarks of my distinguished ranking member. The leader has indicated to me that we are supposed to proceed as the floor managers see best tonight. We are going to try to have three votes at 7 p.m.. They will be expeditious in terms of time allotted to both, and then we intend to continue on for the evening, perhaps an hour, hour and a half. After that we will have another group of amendments, and we will do this until we see some daylight, in terms of the entire time running out on this bill. With that I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask that Senator Grassley be added as a cosponsor on amendment No. 2213 on behalf of Senator Bond.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask consent that it be in order to file an amendment in behalf of Senator Sessions. It was not part of my package. I ask it be in order nonetheless at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand when we entered into the unanimous consent request we very particularly and specifically did not mention the issue of second-degree amendments, other than the amount of time that would be allotted to debate them. That means when an amendment comes up or as it is getting prepared, Senators who are interested in a second degree would obviously have time before the amendment and have time during the amendment, which is 30 minutes, to prepare and send to the desk the second-degree amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the clock strikes 6, I have one additional amendment which would not be in order after that. In behalf of Senator Hatch, I send this amendment to the desk. It is the last one.

Mr. DOMENICI. Then we have a sense of the Senate; Senator Faircloth, or I in behalf of, on the marital deduction disparity and efforts that we want the Senate to make in terms of clearing that deficiency with reference to the marital deduction. The first vote will be 15 minutes, and 10 minutes thereafter, as we have already agreed to. Would Senator Lautenberg like to let Senator Hollings proceed?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to explore with the Senate how we might proceed. Mr. President, what I have discussed with the leader and with the ranking member is that we try to have three amendments ready to vote pursuant to the order at 7 o'clock. I think we can do that. First, we will attempt to have the amendment of Senator Moseley- Braun. It would be on or in relation thereto. Then I understand Senator Hollings has an amendment. Could he quickly tell us what it is?