Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I make a point of order, as I previously indicated, that it violates the Budget Act and is not germane.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield all time back.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates the Budget Act and is not germane.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposal by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. At the appropriate time I will raise a point of order. First, let me say that this proposal exceeds the spending caps set in the balanced budget amendment by $600 million in budget authority, and $900 million in outlays. The budget before us assumes $1 billion in additional spending over 5 years of the Superfund as originally agreed upon in the balanced budget amendment. The budget resolution provides $1.4 billion in budget authority, and $1.3 billion in outlays to fund critical construction programs within the Corps of Engineers rejecting the proposal of the President to cut it 47.4 percent. It fully funds the President's request for National Park Service operations at $1.3 billion; $1.2 billion in outlays. It fully funds the President's request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, with $2.3 billion in budget authority; $2.19 billion in expected expenditures. It assumes funding for the Landowner Incentives Program of the pending Endangered Species Recovery Act, a step forward for both the environmental community and private owners and protecting the Nation's endangered species. It rejects the President's proposed reductions in the Environmental Protection Agency and tribal assistance grant funds; $2.7 billion above the President's budget over 5 years for clean water, drinking water, and targeted wastewater funds. It provides $1.1 billion more in budget authority over 5 years than the alternative that was provided in the committee by the minority. Frankly, when all of that is said and done, this is another one of these funds that is set up. The money that is going to be needed to do all the things that Senator Lautenberg contends should be done is not provided for, nor are cuts in programs provided for that would go into the fund. I guess while it sounds good, I firmly believe that it will never really happen. But, in all events, it is not germane. I will make that point of order as soon as time is available. I yield any additional time that I may have. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if the Senator from Colorado is not going to move to waive, I will.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Dorgan proposed to us, and I think to the American people, that he is not for reform and he likes the current tax system. Unless that is the case, then it seems to me he would at least permit those who write the tax laws to try to write a new one that is better than this one. My question is, do you like the Tax Code the way it is? Do you like tax reform, which has never been passed yet? We don't know what it will be, except it will be better than this one.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty seconds apiece.

Mr. DOMENICI. I gave him 40 seconds and you said I had 57 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. How many seconds do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thought we weren't going to do that. We entered a unanimous consent agreement that we couldn't do that. Or did we say we would only do it for ourselves?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 40 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. I think that 3, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, someone might have walked up to me and said, ``Senator Domenici, why are you on such a measure?'' But for many years, more than 5, I have been telling New Mexicans and every American that I could speak to that we are going to reform the tax laws of America. And guess what has happened. They now consist of 17,000 pages of laws. That is not the regulations and all the other things--17,000. And every year that passed, since that 5 or 6 years ago when we started talking about basic reform, the tax laws got more complicated, more difficult, cost more money, and more detrimental to the American economy with the passage of each year. Frankly, I am on this bill and I decided to put it in the budget resolution because it seemed to me that we were muscle bound. We could not get anything done. I believe the right thing to do when you are in that condition, and the people are suffering from it, and the country is suffering from it, is that you say there is going to be an ``or else'' to this--``you fix it or else.'' That is what sunsetting is. But nobody should think that we are talking about sunsetting a code without prescribing some basic fundamentals about the code we intend to replace, that defective, deficient one. And anybody who is interested in knowing whether we just said, ``Let's do away with the code,'' or whether we spoke intelligently and with great common sense, right to what the American people are worried about, just turn to page 33 of S. Con. Res. 86--and if my time runs out in the middle of these next two or three paragraphs, just stop me. But the findings are found in this resolution. And it says: Findings--Congress finds that a simple and fair Federal tax system is one that-- (1) applies a low rate, through easily understood laws, to all Americans; (2) provides tax relief for working Americans; (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection abuses; (4) eliminates bias against savings and investment; (5) promotes economic growth and job creation; (6) does not penalize marriage or families; (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process. . . . And then it goes on to say that the reason for this sunset is ``that a new Federal tax system''--not nothing, as was suggested, but ``a new Federal tax system will be enacted that is both simple and fair as described in'' the provisions that I just read 2 minutes ago. That is what the American people want to hear, that we are going to do away with this one because we want to pass a new one and more like it. And if we can pass the law and send it to the President with the real sunset, it is a message to the committees of the Congress, to the reformers who seem to never end in terms of, what are we going to get in place of this one, that the time is running out, the clock is ticking. And that is what this is about. I believe the American people, although they have been fed some shock medicine by the President, who talks about how irresponsible this is, if they heard this read, what we propose, that we are saying stop what is currently an abomination and substitute it with a new one that does the following things, would say, ``Hallelujah. Let's do it.'' So I believe we should turn down the proposal that attempts to wipe this out of the budget. It is the right place to have it. It is the right thing to do. And if we want a good future, we are right on track. Fix Social Security in the way we have been discussing, take care of Medicare, and fix it, and reform this Tax Code; and we will be giving our children and future generations the best present that we could give anyone as elected adult leaders. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Hutchinson who has been one of the coleaders on this issue.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator, and then I will yield 5 minutes to the next Senator who is his copartner in getting this done.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, one of the proponents of this provision, although I saw to it that it was put in the resolution, is Senator Brownback who is standing now and wants to be recognized. Is the Senator going to lead off on his side?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I wonder if the Senator would accommodate me for about 6 or 7 minutes. Senator Gorton would like to speak on a matter. I ask consent he be permitted to speak for 6 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I gather the sequencing would be that Senator Dorgan will start and then Senator Allard will follow, and then Senator Lautenberg, and then Senator Bond, and then Senator Bumpers. We will arrange for Senator Bumpers by unanimous consent. Mr. President, before we start the order here, might I suggest that Senator Bumpers would be our fifth amendment tonight, but we have agreed with him that we will come in at 8:30 in the morning instead of 9. He will offer his amendment, and thus the half-hour between 8:30 and 9 will be available for the agreed-upon time, which is a half-hour, equally divided, for the Bumpers amendment. He is here. I ask unanimous consent that when we start up in the morning at 8:30 the order of business be the Bumpers amendment, and pursuant to the previous order there be a half-hour equally divided on that and the vote eventually be on or in relationship to that and we waive no points of order.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Faircloth have 3 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I believe the Record will reflect that Senator Faircloth was granted permission to speak for 3 minutes since we yielded back 6 minutes of his time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, if I thought this amendment would do anything to save or preserve Social Security, I would be for it. In my humble opinion, it does absolutely nothing to save Social Security. What it does is attempt to change the process and procedures so that if the Budget Committee reports out for Senate consideration anything on Social Security, it is subject to a 60-vote point of order. We could get to the point where we will take every committee of jurisdiction and pass a process rule because there was something in their jurisdiction we didn't want them to do business on. We could say anything you report out has to have 60 votes. Then we would take that to the floor, and the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction would stand up and say, ``What have we come to?'' This seems like some kind of exuberance that is not calculated to do anything except have some words suggesting we are trying to save Social Security. I raised a point of order. There is a motion to waive it. I hope we do not waive it. I urge Senators to vote ``no'' on the motion to waive. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.