Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have concurred with the minority regarding an agenda from now until some time after 4 o'clock this afternoon. And I would like to propose it by way of a consent decree which I understand is satisfactory to the other side. I ask unanimous consent that the following be the sequence of amendments debated between now and 4 p.m. today, and that a vote occur on or in relation to the Murray amendment at 2:20 p.m., with the time prior to 2:20--5 minutes--to be equally divided between Senator Murray and Senator Domenici or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that the Gregg amendment No. 2167, and the Dodd amendment No. 2173-- that votes occur on or in relation to the remaining above listed amendments beginning at 4 p.m., with 2 minutes of debate between each vote for an explanation, and with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes at 4 p.m. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Coats, I was very hopeful that in spite of your schedule you would have time to speak here this morning. Your staff spoke to us about it. I am very pleased you did that.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be equally charged.

Mr. DOMENICI. I apologize to the Senate for the lack of business in the last few moments. We had some amendments that we had to clarify with sponsors. So let me continue and make sure we are clear on the unanimous consent that I have proposed. Let me start over since none of it had been granted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the sequence of amendments debated between now and 4 p.m. today, and that a vote occur on or in relation to the Murray amendment at 2:20 p.m. with the time prior to 2:20 being equally divided between Senator Murray and Senator Domenici or his designee; that regarding the Gregg amendment, No. 2168, and the Dodd amendment, No. 2173, votes occur on or in relation to those amendments beginning at 4 p.m., with 2 minutes of debate between each vote for explanations, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote at 4 p.m.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Are we scheduled to go in recess at 12:30?

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say we now have a starting list of about 12 amendments. When we start at 2:15, I will make sure everybody knows what they are. We are asking that we sequence them in some way so we know where we are going. Frankly, I think either we are going to have to be relieved of some time on the resolution or we are going to stay in tonight and use some time because we really have to finish this this week. Mr. President, let me use the remaining time that I have, with Senator Murray having half of the 5 minutes, to debate her amendment prior to the vote. First, let me say I understand the sincerity and the genuine concern that the distinguished Senator who proposes this amendment has expressed here on the floor, and that she genuinely and generally expresses with reference to education. But I think it is very interesting; we all want to educate our children, but it seems that we are having a little trouble with math, mathematics, adding and subtracting, right here on the floor of the Senate. I have read and reread the amendment of the distinguished Senator, and I cannot find any way that it truly means anything with reference to classroom size. A reserve fund is set up and there is nothing in it, zero. There are no dollars, there are no taxes, there are no statements that we should cut certain programs. As a matter of fact, this amendment says at sometime in the future we sure hope Congress will find a way to cut spending someplace, perhaps cut a mandatory program, that is an entitlement, someplace; or perhaps increase taxes sometime. Then it says: Put those in this reserve fund, this box, and we will spend it for reducing classroom sizes. That is very interesting. If somebody thinks he or she is going to tell the American people that Senators who vote against this measure voted against a reduction in classroom size, then just take it from me, we will put an ad right up under that that says, ``The program had no money in it, no way to pay for it, did not have enough courage to say what program you would cut or which taxes you would raise. It just said, I am for--and I want--and I hope--and I wish--and it would be great if we have--a reserve fund someday, if we use it for classroom size reduction.'' That is essentially the amendment. It is out of order under the Budget Act and under the processes, and we will raise that point. The vote will be on whether or not it is out of order, for I assume the distinguished Senator will move to waive it. But I cannot find it. Normally, you set up a reserve fund and you say, We are going to put taxes in this reserve fund or receipts from someplace, or we say, We are going to cut certain entitlement programs and use that money for some program, project or activity. What has happened here is the following: No one yet on that side of the aisle who wants to spend more money than required in this budget resolution has found a way to cut any program to pay for it--not yet. I have been looking. There are already a series that I have looked at. None cut any program to pay for a higher priority program. Second, none say, even though we insist on keeping a balanced budget, and they do also, these amendments--they don't want to break that balanced budget era we have--nonetheless, the amendments go right back to the era when we had programs for which we did not know how to pay. I defy anyone to tell me how we are going to pay for this program if we ever did it. Frankly, that is a statement of where we are. The same is going to be true for the amendment of my good friend, Senator Dodd, on child care. They found a way to set up a reserve fund with nothing in it and they say, ``When something happens, then we will pay for this wonderful program for the American people.'' I use that word in its fairest sense. Some people think these programs ought to be paid for by the Federal Government. I do not. I just want you to look at one chart. Everybody can look at it here. The business of classroom size in the United States is the business of the sovereign States of America, and they know there is a problem. Mr. President, they are spending more and more money in the school districts across America to reduce class size than on almost anything else they are doing, and they are doing a wonderful job of it. This simple chart up here says from 1960 to 1996 classroom sizes have been reduced 51 percent, from 25.8 to 17.6. That is the green line. That is because the red line shows how many more teachers have been added. Not because we are paying for them at the national level, but because our States are paying for them and the school boards are paying for them. In New York, where the cities pay for it, they are paying for it. Now we are going to come along in an amendment and try to tell the American people if you don't vote for this, you are against education, which amendment has no way of paying for the teachers. These States cannot do that. You know that green line did not come about because somebody set up a reserve fund and said if we ever find that we raise taxes, we can put the taxes in that reserve fund--``if''--or we can cut some other program and put that in there--``if.'' You know that green line would not have come down one bit if that is what States said. That is what we are saying here today. The truth of the matter is the teacher ratio is coming down and it is coming down dramatically. Frankly, I am not very impressed with Senator after Senator from whatever side of the aisle coming down here and essentially saying, ``Education is not going well in America and we know how to fix it up here in Washington. What we ought to do is have a new program, a new mandate.'' But this one is even worse than that, because it suggests we ought to do that, and there is no money to do it, which is a very interesting phenomenon--if you can help education without putting any money into a program but saying you wish it would happen. The truth of the matter is that the National Center for Educational Statistics, commonly known as NCES, projects that trend is going to continue and, I might say, continue without anybody ever having thought the Federal Government would start paying for reducing classroom size. They estimate, in their publication, that by the year 2006 there will be as many as 3 million K-12 public school teachers, an additional 16 percent over the 1996 number. This same organization, highly renowned, says that the pupil-teacher ratios will continue to decline and they will continue to drop as low as 15.4 in the year 2006, an 11 percent decrease from 1996. And, Mr. President and fellow Senators, let me repeat: They did not expect that the Federal Government would get involved in telling these schools how they can reduce class size. Let me also suggest this is an interesting reserve fund in another way, because it proposes to fund a program that is unknown. The President suggests that there be this program. And, incidentally, for those who wondered how he paid for it--for he paid for it--he paid for it out of the cigarette tax, the settlement. But the budget office said you can't do that, because in doing that you break the budget. But he did plan to pay for it. Let me suggest that NCES projects these without ever contemplating that the United States of America would get involved in paying for pupil-teacher ratio reductions. Where is the program? The White House has not sent up their program, but let me tell you there is a formula about. For Senators who might think this amendment is determinative of something--I don't believe it is determinative of anything, but let's assume you really think it might be--then I suggest you might not like the proposal if it was to be carried out, because, since 20 States have invested additional funds in targeted efforts to reduce class size, that means that under the formula they are not even given credit for that. They are penalized, for more money goes to States that have not done that. You know if we get a bill, if ever--and I don't think it will ever happen that we get a bill on the floor of the Senate that attempts to get the U.S. Government into determining class sizes--you know that the formula is not going to work. But there is no bill, no substance. Nobody has written the flesh on the bones that will tell us what kind of program this is. Senator Murray does not know how much or how it is paid for. The President's plan actually estimates $12 billion over 7 years --$12 billion. If that is the plan, I wonder why the sponsors --and there are more than one--don't look through the budget and find $12 billion to spend. I wonder why they don't say maybe we are going to increase taxes to pay for it. Is the era of balanced budgets gone? Are we going to come up with a program we don't know how to pay for and try to let somebody think it is a real, vital, operative set of words called a ``reserve fund'' that will get anything done about classroom size? Frankly, I am very grateful that to this point in our history we have not asked the Federal Government to do this kind of thing. I am very grateful because, as a matter of fact, everything they get into of this type ends up with more bureaucracy, more redtape, more mandates on the States than do most programs that truly produce beneficial results. But I am also thankful we are not in it because the States and school districts see the problem. They do not come up to the floor of the Senate when the problem is getting solved. They start solving it. They didn't start solving this problem when we were already down to about 16.8, they started solving it when it was 25. So it is obvious to me that there is a reason for this amendment being subject to a point of order. That point of order should be sustained. I am not going to second-degree amendments which should fall by a point of order, because I believe that is what we should do to them: One by one, every one that is subject to that, like this one is, we ought to quickly not waive the budget process and not waive the rules of the Senate and say the program just doesn't fit. Having said that, I will have 2\1/2\ minutes later. Let me conclude. Mr. President, I do want to say to the distinguished Senator, Senator Murray, I, too, was a schoolteacher--not with the great prowess and experience that she had, but I taught one of those subjects we are all worried about, mathematics. I taught that. I didn't take political science; I took chemistry and math. I don't know how that prepared me to be a Senator, but I did teach algebra and arithmetic. Frankly, it is hard work. Frankly, believe it or not, I believe I taught every single child in my class who knew how to add and subtract--I believe I taught them algebra. Frankly--God forbid--I have to tell you, I had 44 students in each class. I am not suggesting we do that. I am delighted to see this green line. In fact, for some of our children--and our States are on to this, too--with great disabilities, we are going to have to do better than this. And they are, they are. They are doing better than this. Let me just close by suggesting that if this program which is encapsulated in these reserve language words is as important as my good friend contends, then it would seem to me we ought to find some other program in the U.S. Government's litany of programs--which is still around 2,600 and growing--we ought to find some programs we could terminate or cut to pay for it. As a matter of fact, the entitlement programs of America, while somewhat under control, are a burgeoning part of the American budget. Essentially, if you want a real reserve fund, you ought to be able to find something in this enormous number of billions of dollars of entitlement programs that is a little less important than the program the distinguished Senator says is so important. Frankly, I do not in any way contend that we know that classroom size is the answer to every issue. I don't want to get into a debate on that. We will just accept the Senator's language and words about how important it is. But there is a growing dispute, nonetheless, between competent schools of academics and education, as to whether the current problem in the American schools is as much related to classroom size as one of the other groups says. There is one group of experts who say it is not as important as some other things. The reason I say that is because that is exactly the kind of thing we should not be resolving up here. It is right at the State legislatures, it is right in the offices of superintendents and boards of education, and it is not right in Washington with another Washington-based program. I see that the time for recessing has arrived. I will be asking Senators to concur with me that this amendment should fall because it is subject to a point of order under our rules, and in this case the rules make great sense, for to vote on a program like this as if it did something, as if there was real money in it, as if there was a way to find real money--our processes are pretty good when they say that kind of amendment, for whatever reason, is subject to a point of order in the Senate. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Time is up. I understand there is an order to go into recess.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the regular order. I will be glad to give her some additional time when the amendment comes up again. I think we are supposed to go into recess right now.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation/Merchant Marine of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at 2:30 pm on reauthorization of the surface transportation board.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I announce that this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 86, the budget resolution. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, at 10 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of the Sessions amendment, No. 2166, with 30 minutes of debate equally divided, with a vote occurring on or in relation to the amendment at approximately 10:30 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will resume debate of the Murray amendment, No. 2165. During today's session of the Senate, Members can anticipate debate on a number of amendments expected to be offered to the budget resolution. Any Members wishing to offer amendments should contact the managers with their intentions. Any Members, I repeat, wishing to offer amendments should contact the managers with their intentions. In addition, the Senate may consider any executive or legislative business cleared for Senate action. Therefore, Members can anticipate a very busy day of floor action. As a reminder to all Senators, the first vote will occur at approximately 10:30 a.m. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, wishes a few moments on the Sessions sense-of-the-Senate resolution. He cannot be here at 10 or later, which is the time prescribed for discussion on that resolution, so I ask consent it be in order for the distinguished Senator from Indiana to discuss this sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator Sessions offered before 10 o'clock, as he arrives on the Senate floor. I will yield time to him off our side of the bill at that point.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with regret that I, once again, tell the Senate that this is an empty amendment--empty. It states a wish, a hope, and maybe a prayer, and it couches it in language that says we are setting up a reserve. Reserves normally have something in them. This reserve says maybe at some point in time we will have something to put in this reserve. Maybe we will raise taxes and put the raised taxes in this reserve. Maybe we will cut a mandatory program, take away from some entitlement program and put it in there. Otherwise, it is an empty amendment. To have an empty amendment on a budget resolution ought to violate some rule, and, as a matter of fact, it does. This is subject to a point of order. I think from time to time we wonder whether points of order really contribute substantively to an argument. This one does. For anybody who thinks this amendment proposes anything real for the classrooms of America--if one wanted to have the Federal Government involved in a program and if one knew what the program was--the truth of the matter is that this is empty and, therefore, is subject to a point of order. Mr. President, I yield back any time that I have remaining. The pending amendment is not germane to the provisions of the budget resolution pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. I raise a point of order against the pending amendment. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, Senator Gregg, we understand, desires no more time on his amendment, which is his second-degree amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent, if Senator Gregg desires the time, that he be allotted time after the debate on the Dodd amendment. I am not sure the Senator will desire that. The regular order would now prescribe, if that unanimous consent is granted, the next amendment is Senator Dodd's amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent whatever time the Senator has, he reserve that time and we set aside his amendment so Senator Craig can introduce an amendment and speak to it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just say, when we were attempting to come up with a constitutional amendment that would work with reference to a balanced budget, Senator Craig was the leader, and we all worked with him in an effort to get an amendment which controlled spending through controlling the amount of debt that could be issued. And, frankly, that was a lot better approach than many before it because it was actually doable, it was achievable, and it was understandable. And it controlled spending in the right way, because essentially spending is one thing, but spending when you do not have the money is another thing. And we have such a powerful country that we can borrow and borrow and borrow. It is just in recent years that we have finally got a hold of our senses and have taken such a lead in the world, the industrial world where we have competition and capitalism and free enterprise. We have taken such a lead of late because we are getting our debt under control. I think it is fair to say we are also getting our entitlement programs under control. We have never before, before the last decade, been so concerned--and rightly so--about entitlement programs as part of the package of expenditures that make up our budget for which we either pay or, if we do not have enough tax receipts, for which we borrow. And while I am not certain that I will support the amendment exactly as it is--I have not made up my mind--I do think it is welcome here on the floor, because we have been talking about a lot of new entitlements in an era where we are proud of balanced budgets and an era of surpluses. While they are not totally inconsistent--to be talking about an era of surpluses and balanced budgets for many, many decades--it is obvious that the biggest danger is new entitlement programs. And since we cannot increase discretionary programs, as the Senator well knows, because we finally found a way with the caps and the automatic sequester at the end of the year--found a way to control them, and everybody now expects us to, the next front is to increase entitlements and in some way find money to pay for them, but that will just make a much bigger, bigger budget and it will be more and more dangerous than even if you increase discretionary spending. If you increase discretionary spending 1 year, you don't have to the next year. But if you increase entitlements, you have to change entitlements. If your estimating is wrong, you have to have an amendment. By then, you have people who have been receiving the entitlement; right? Not so easy to change. So I commend you on the thrust of the amendment and the remarks tonight. I think they are welcome in the debate we have had for the last 2 years. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the amendment will take its place among the many amendments which will be at some point appropriately sequenced for votes. Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. I think we are about ready, as soon as the clock strikes 10 o'clock, to recess. I think I have a long enough list of unanimous consent requests for all those wonderfully glowing, smiling faces lined up alongside of the dais there. We will be 1 minute or 2 past 10 before we finish. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relationship to the Conrad amendment No. 2174 now occur at 2 p.m., with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I also ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the budget resolution on Wednesday, there be 20 hours remaining under the overall statutory time limitation. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the resolution on Wednesday, the Coverdell amendment No. 2199 be the pending business.

Mr. DOMENICI. What is the status of time under the Budget Act on the Conrad amendment?