Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today for a few words about Senator John Chafee, our wonderful friend who left us early this morning. I happened to be privileged to know both he and his wife Virginia very well. My heart goes out to her today. I have not been able to contact her because it is pretty difficult. The phone lines are busy, and she is busy. But my wife Nancy and I extend our sympathies and hope we will see her very soon. As I think about John Chafee, I see this mild-mannered person; but then I read about him, and there is a great paradox. If you look at what he did as a patriot, he was a great war hero. He served with the U.S. Marines in Iwo Jima, a very gruesome life experience. Clearly, he had to do some things that aren't so consistent with what we see in a very mild-mannered person. Believe it or not, after law school at Harvard, he volunteered and went a second time. He went to Korea. Then you would think such a talented man would probably want to be in the front office with generals and admirals. But he was head of a rifle team on the ground. That was John Chafee. Yet you could hear him regularly, when he made decisions on foreign affairs issues, talk about our country in a way that you absolutely were sure you knew where his heart, conscience, and mind were. It went way beyond that. So if anybody were striving to match him, they would have to take a look at the next one, which is his fantastic public service. We all knew him in his last public service career. But many people knew him in the earlier stages, when he was a representative and head of the minority party in the House of Representatives in his State and Governor twice. I remember vividly when I was elected to the Senate 26 years ago, there were four Senators on the Republican ticket across America who were expected to win. I remember getting a visit in my State then from Richard Nixon, and he had gone to Rhode Island, which was where John Chafee was running, who had been Secretary of the Navy and was supposed to be elected; Senator Bartlett of Oklahoma; Senator McClure of Idaho; and myself. He lost. So he was 2 years younger than I am. It took 2 years for them to realize it, but then they finally elected him. He was here ever since. I can quickly state the legacy I see after all these years, as can others who have been here 10, 15, 20 years. He had such a variety of things he did that I am not sure the two things for which I know him best will be his true legacy; maybe both will be. Senator Chafee followed in the footsteps of great environmental Senators such as Ed Muskie when he became chair, on our side, of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I do believe, even though most of the legislation for clean air, water, and the like had already been accomplished before he went on, at least the policies were in place, as the occupant of the Chair readily knows in his distinguished career. He quickly became known as a real environmentalist who understood and was practical yet stern in his beliefs. When it came to clean air and clean water, pollution in general, and certainly conservation of open space, there was no peer during his years as chairman and even before that. Everybody will get up and speak, I am sure, about his distinguished efforts on the health care side. He happened to be on the Finance Committee. When you say the Committee on Finance in the Senate, many people don't think of health care, but they have a lot of health care jurisdiction, including Medicare, Medicaid, and all the tax laws as they relate to health care. There was no stronger advocate for getting more people covered in health care than John Chafee and no stronger advocate for the health of our children and the need to make sure we were taking every precaution in getting health care to our children and passing laws that would get it there. He was truly a staunch advocate for healthy Americans and Americans having a better chance to be healthy, to get cured when they are sick, and taken care of when they are sick. I am sure there are other things he has done of which I am not aware. But if we got a chance to look at his record, it would be mentioned. There will be plenty of opportunity. I thought if I found the Senate open, I would drop by and say thank you, Senator Chafee, and thank you to his family for all they did for our country and for the Senate; thanks to his wonderful wife for all the sacrifices she and their wonderful family have made. I hope, again, we will get to see that family during the next 2 or 3 days. I hope the Senate will honor him appropriately. I hope we take time off and go to his funeral. I am not in charge, but I hope we do that. I think we ought to do that, wherever it is. Whatever we are doing, we ought to take time off. That is just what we ought to do for a real Senator and a real friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield, I must say I agree with my colleagues, Senators Hutchison, Murkowski, and Nickles, who represent, along with myself, the key committees of jurisdiction over this issue. The GAO study that we have mandated must, at a minimum, provide a thorough examination of these issues, as detailed here and in the conference report.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to explain the provision, and I thank the Senator for her leadership and diligence in joining with me to fight this clear example of regulatory abuse by a Federal agency. As the Senator knows, Federal law requires that the value of oil from Federal land be determined when it is drawn from the ground, or ``at the lease.'' After decades of following the law and using this method of determining oil value, in 1997 the MMS tried to implement a new system without congressional approval and one not supported by statutory law. The proposal would peg the royalty price of the oil ``downstream,'' that is, after value has been added to it through transportation, processing, and marketing. It was the equivalent of the Federal Government saying that, rather than determine the value of Federal land timber when it is chopped-down, the Federal Government would tax the value of the timber once it was turned into furniture. We fought that plan, and will continue to fight it, as long as the MMS continues to ignore the mandate of the law and of the Congress. But, as the Senator from Texas indicated, we offered a compromise on this issue. Frankly, part of the problem in this debate, and one of the reasons it has been so polarized, is that there has never been a comprehensive, independent assessment of just how the MMS can establish the value of Federal royalty oil in a simpler, more workable way, while following the controlling Federal statutes. Everyone agrees that the process as it exists today is too complex, and too subjective. In fact, I and other Members of Congress have held extensive meetings and hearings on the issue to determine just how we can make the rule easier and more predictable to administer, while ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer for Federal royalty oil. This provision included in the conference report requires a General Accounting Office study. We have directed the GAO to carefully examine the key issues raised by the proposed new rule and report back to Congress before any new royalty valuation rule can go into effect. But to ensure that this is not dragged out too long, we have directed that the GAO's report on the issue be submitted to Congress within 6 months. Finally, the provision requires that any new proposal by the MMS must comply fully with all applicable Federal laws, including those requiring the establishment of oil value at the lease, that is, at the wellhead.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 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 amounts provided for emergency requirements and arrearages for international organizations, international peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks. I hereby submit revisions to the 2000 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays Deficit ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current allocation: General purpose discretionary........ 550,441 557,580 ......... Violent crime reduction fund......... 4,500 5,554 ......... Highways............................. ......... 24,574 ......... Mass transit......................... ......... 4,117 ......... Mandatory............................ 321,502 304,297 .........

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in conjunction with Hispanic Heritage Month I am introducing the Palace of the Governors Expansion Act. The Palace is a symbol of Hispanic influence in the United States and truly shows the coming together of many cultures in the New World--the various Native American, Hispanic and Anglo peoples who have lived in the region for over four centuries. It is appropriate that during Hispanic Heritage Month that a bill should be introduced to preserve a priceless collection of Spanish Colonial, Iberian Colonial paintings, artifacts, maps, books, guns, costumes, photographs. The collection includes such historically unique items as the helmets and armor worn by the Don Juan Onate expedition conquistadors who established the first capital in the United States, San Juan de los Caballeros, in July of 1598. It includes the Vara Stick, a type of yardstick used to measure land grants and other real property boundaries in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. We have all heard of Geronimo. The Collection includes a rifle dropped by one of his men during a raid in the Black Range area of Western New Mexico. We have all heard of Pancho Villa. His activities in the Southwest come alive when viewing some of the artifacts included in the Palace of the Governors Collection. The Columbus, New Mexico Railway Station clock was shot in the pendulum, freezing for all history the moment that Pancho Villa's raid and invasion began. It is part of the collection, but you wouldn't know it because there is no room to display it. Brigadier General Stephen Watts Kearny was posted to New Mexico during the Mexican War. He commanded the Army of the West as they traveled from the Santa Fe trail to occupy the territories of New Mexico and California. As Kearny travelled, he carried a field desk which he used to write letters, diaries, orders and other historical documents. It is part of the collection, but you can't see it because there is no display space for it in the Palace of the Governors. Many of us have read books by D. H. Lawrence, but none of us have seen the note from his mother that is part of the collection. There are more than 800,000 other historic photographs, guns, costumes, maps, books and handicrafts. Today, where are these treasures that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to make part of the Smithsonian housed now? Where is this collection that has been designated as National Treasures by the National Trust for Historic preservation kept? In the basement of a 400 year old building. It is a national travesty. This legislation would right this wrong by authorizing funds for a Palace of the Governors Expansion Annex. The entire project will cost $32 million. The legislation authorizes a $15 million federal grant if the Museum can match the grant on a 50-50 basis. The Palace of the Governors has acquired a half block right behind the current Palace. Obtaining this valuable real estate is evidence of the ingenuity and commitment of those involved in preserving the collection. Real estate near Santa Fe's plaza is seldom for sale at any price, much less an affordable price. Palace of the Governors has been the center of administrative and cultural activity over a vast region in the Southwest since its construction as New Mexico's second capitol in Santa Fe by Governor Pedro de Peralta in 1610. The building is the oldest continuously occupied public building in the United States. Since its creation, the Museum of New Mexico has worked to protect and promote Hispanic, Southwest and Native American arts and crafts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation saving this important collection. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about a crisis going on in our nursing home industry. Today, a very large nursing home with headquarters in my home State of New Mexico filed for Chapter 11, that is bankruptcy protection but it is bankruptcy nonetheless. This is the second nursing home chain to file for bankruptcy in the last 2 months. These two nursing home chains own hundreds of facilities over the country, across it from north to south and east to west. So every Senator should be concerned about what is happening in this industry. Frankly, we could have avoided this crisis if the administration had been more willing to acknowledge and address the problem. We wrote a bipartisan letter to Secretary Shalala in May, signed by 64 Senators, urging her to work with us to address the problem administratively. We have yet to get a response. Now I am here to tell you unless something very dramatic is done, this crisis is not over. We are going to see more bankruptcies and ultimately disruptions in the care for our senior citizens unless we fix this problem. Clearly, one of the major reasons for these failures is the new payment system through the Medicare program for skilled nursing facilities and some of the services they give to their patients. Everyone, including the Health Care Financing Administration, acknowledges that this payment system does not adequately reimburse nursing homes for so-called nontherapy ancillary services; that is, drugs, oxygen, and other costs incurred, which are a very large part of the expenses of taking care of our seniors in nursing homes. To address this problem, I joined with Senator Hatch and others in introducing S. 1500. That would fix the new payment system and it is fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, the package of Medicare provisions released by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee yesterday is woefully inadequate. Hatch-Domenici increased the payment rates in the 15 categories of reimbursement that clearly underpay for those patients with high non- therapy ancillary costs. The Finance Committee package, however, only includes two of these 15 categories. I am told that this is the position that HCFA supports, perhaps based on a contractor's analysis of the problem. But I am also told that the same contractor indicates right up front in the report that patients with high non-therapy ancillary costs are likely to appear in the patient categories covered by the Hatch- Domenici bill. But, it seems to me that there is no higher priority in Medicare than fixing this problem, which is on the verge of disrupting care for millions of seniors in every state. The Finance Committee is working on a bill to help in this area and some others. I have seen the bill as of yesterday. It is totally inadequate to take care of this problem, this crisis across this land. In my State, if this company goes bankrupt, totally bankrupt, it will not only hurt seniors across this land but we will have 700 to 800 people who will lose their jobs. They have been working in this industry for years. I ask the Finance Committee to reconsider what they contemplated yesterday. I will begin working with some of them, with specifics. But I guarantee those who are contemplating a bill to do some justice and fairness in this area, we are not going to get by with the provisions that were in the bill as of yesterday.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I attend dinners and events to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, I have been impressed with the energy that the Latino people are adding to our nation. They are having an impact in the work place, the market place, in politics and in our culture. Hispanics will surpass blacks as our nation's largest minority by the year 2005. For my colleagues who do not understand my own link to the Hispanic people, I would like to remind you, I grew up in an immigrant household. My father spoke and wrote Italian. He was fluent in Spanish and English, but did not write English. His customers and employees were Hispanics, mainly in the Albuquerque area. He spoke Spanish at home and at work. In the downtown area of Albuquerque, where I grew up, my Hispanic friends spent hours at our family home, and I spent hours in their homes. Personally I understand more Spanish than I speak, despite all the credit I get for being Spanish-speaking. My wife and I are enchanted by the Spanish masses in New Mexico. The guitars and singing add a beautiful and clearly Hispanic dimension to a worship service. In my twenty-six years as a Senator from New Mexico, I have only grown in my appreciation for the Spanish influence in my home state. Although New Mexico is surpassed in absolute numbers of Hispanics by states like California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Florida, no other state has a higher percentage of Hispanic people than New Mexico. Forty percent, or about 680,000 New Mexicans are of Hispanic origin. Because of our unique history, Hispanics in New Mexico are influential in all areas of life. There are well educated Hispanics in our national laboratories, our universities, in the legal and medical professions, and in virtually every business, including ranching and farming. Spanish architecture and culture add a significant depth to life in New Mexico. It is clear to me that Hispanics in every state, not just New Mexico, want to be part of the American mainstream. They want to get ahead and succeed. Hispanics want to own businesses and buy their own homes, and they want their children to get a good education. Recent national surveys confirm that Hispanics want what most Americans want. They want the American Dream. They want to earn good money, buy their own homes, drive nice cars, send their children to safe schools, provide for a college education for their children, and invest in the future. The great majority of Hispanics are working class Americans who work hard. For most Hispanics, the American dream is a reality or approaching reality. About one in four Hispanics remains in poverty, twice the national poverty rate. Recent studies show slight declines in the Latino poverty rates. This is good news, but it could be better, as I will discuss soon. Latinos are forming their own businesses at the highest rates in the nation. The United States Small Business Administration (SBA) reports that the 1.4 million Latino businesses in 1997 represent a 232 percent increase over 1987. Two years later, in 1999, there are more than 1.5 million Latino businesses in the United States, with projections for reaching 3 million businesses by the year 2010. Hispanics were a major force in the California economic recovery, where it is now estimated that 400,000 Latino businesses are established and growing. The most common name of home buyers in Los Angeles is Garcia, followed by Gonzales, Rodriguez, Hernandez, Lopez, and more Spanish names. Los Angeles has 6 million Latinos, more than the total population of most states. In 1997, national Hispanic business receipts were estimated at $184 billion or 417 percent higher than 1987, and employment in these businesses was up 464 percent over 1987. The first Hispanic business in America exceeded one billion dollars in annual revenues this year. This important milestone was accomplished by MasTec Inc of Miami, a large construction firm headed by Jorge Mas Jr. whose father was a Cuban exile leader. As a Time magazine article about Hispanics concluded a few years ago, ``Hispanics are coming and they come bearing gifts.'' In July, of this year Adweek observed in a paraphrase of the Time comment, ``Hispanics are here and they come bearing profits.'' Besides becoming home owners as fast as they can and starting businesses faster than any other ethnic group, Hispanic consumers are also a growing market force. The impact of Latinos in our domestic and international markets is huge. Alert executives have welcomed these new markets and profits by serving the needs of Latino consumers right here in the United States. Adweek recently made this observation about this growing market force, ``Many of the top American companies are already courting the market intelligently and aggressively. Procter & Gamble, Sears & Roebuck, Western Union, Colgate-Palmolive, McDonalds, Allstate and many more are already profiting from the Hispanic market. It's because Hispanics are smart consumers who are loyal to the brands that serve them best and to manufacturers who ask for the order.'' Recent headlines report the impact of Latino activities on the mainstream culture. Major magazines this year have has such headlines such as: ``Young Hispanics Are Changing America'' and ``Latino Power Brokers are Making America Sizzle.'' This month, the Albuquerque Tribune had a story with the headline, ``Hispanic Influence, Power on the Rise.'' Sammy Sosa's home runs are featured in sports headlines, and Ricky Martin and ``La Vida Loca'' win Grammy awards while Latin music is a $12.2 billion industry. There are other major indicators of the growing Hispanic or ``Latino'' influence in our markets, our labor force, and in our schools. Some of these indicators are: --31 million Hispanics now live in America. This is nine million more than the 22.2 million Hispanics reported in the 1990 census. --Latinos account for over 11% of our national population-- one in nine Americans is Latino. It is predicted that one in four Americans will be Latino by the year 2050. --Hispanic buying power in America has increased 65% since 1990 to almost $350 billion today, more than the entire GNP of Mexico. --4.3 million Hispanics voted in 1996 and 5.5 million are expected to vote in the year 2000 elections. Over 12 million Latinos are eligible to vote. --Spanish-speaking America is already the world's fifth largest Hispanic nation. In ten years, only Mexico will have a larger Hispanic population. --Spanish-speaking America is already the world's fifth largest Hispanic nation. There are 400 million Hispanics in the western hemisphere. --There are proportionally more Medal of Honor winners among Hispanics than any other ethnic group in America. It is no wonder that George W. Bush and Al Gore are speaking their best Spanish to Latino audiences. Some are even asking, ``Who is assimilating whom? Some say we need ``English Only'' as a protection from the growing numbers of Spanish speakers. I say we need to apply ``English Plus'' other languages like Spanish. Our nation will be better prepared for the future by adding Spanish, Italian, German, Japanese, and other languages to our national strengths. I will oppose movements like ``English Only'' that are so brazenly aimed at Hispanics and Hispanic culture. ``English Plus'' is a much more healthy approach to our economic and cultural future. Hispanics are proud to remind us that they are represented among Medal of Honor winners more than any other ethnic group in our country. Names like Lopez, Jimenez, Martinez, Rodriguez, Valdez, Gonzales, and Gomez are among the recipients of our nation's highest military honor. Many are New Mexico Hispanics who were over-represented in the infamous Bataan Death March of World War II. Having surveyed the major indicators of Hispanic growth and economic potential over the past decade and the important prospects for further growth and influence, I must now stress to my colleagues that Hispanic people in America today still face two major obstacles that I see. First, capital is the key to growing business in our great country, and Hispanics do not have sufficient access to capital that their numbers and ideas might indicate. Second, and even more important for our future, the drop-out rate of Hispanics is unacceptably high. Let me elaborate. As Hector D. Cantu observed in his Hispanic Business Column (July 1, 1999) for Knight Ridder News, ``Put Latino entrepreneurs in any room and they soon start talking about capital. Or rather, the lack of it. So many business plans, they might say, and so few banks willing to lend them money.'' The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, in a June 22, 1999, study of small business finance in two Chicago minority neighborhoods, found that ``Black and Hispanic owners start their businesses with less funding than owners in the other ethnic groups. Black and Hispanic owners also depend on personal savings for a higher proportion of their start-up funding and are more likely to use personal savings as their only source of start-up funding.'' This study also noted that with the following baseline characteristics: ``eating/drinking place, high school education, proficient in English, no previous experience as an owner, aged 37 years, male, and business started 12 years ago,'' ``A White owner . . . starts with 167 percent more funding ($54,564) than a comparable Hispanic ($20,414); and Asian owner starts with 32 percent more ($26,921); and an owner in the Other category starts with 49 percent more ($30,479).'' A Black owner in this study started with ``an estimated 46 percent smaller pool of funds ($11,104) than a comparable Hispanic.'' To help remedy situations like this all around the country, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) gave us some good news last month about business loans to Hispanics throughout the nation. They reported that SBA-backed loans (bank loans guaranteed by SBA) have more than doubled from $286 million in FY 1992 to about $635 million in FY 1999. This represents more than 21,000 loans worth about $3.7 billion in loans to Hispanic-owned businesses in this seven year period. Even with these impressive improvements in SBA participation and growth rates of 232% in Hispanic-owned businesses in the last decade, Hispanics still own only about 5 percent of the businesses in the United States. As Hispanic influence is felt in our markets, I will encourage continued SBA support for improving bank lending. I would like to note for my colleagues that, on the private sector side of the ledger, Merrill Lynch is reportedly seeking more Hispanic mortgage lending, economic empowerment initiatives, and small business lending. Merrill Lynch has launched a $77 million pilot called the Southern California Partnership for Economic Achievement. In his article about this on April 8, 1999, Hector D. Cantu (Knight Ridder) noted that a vice president of Merrill Lynch in California made this observation about his company: ``The history of Merrill Lynch has been a company that has prided itself on being one step ahead of the competition and positioning itself where great wealth is being created.'' He noted that after World War II, ``We saw great wealth being created in the suburbs. In the 1980s, we saw worldwide economic explosions. We went to Japan and Europe to be positioned globally as we saw capitalism breaking out.'' ``To this list, Merrill Lynch is now adding the U.S. Hispanic market.'' ``It's not a trend that started last year. It's something that has been decades in the making. We see it reaching critical mass in very specific ways. In small business creation. In home ownership. In pure demographics.'' With this kind of economic future and solid demographics to back the Hispanic markets, there is still a disturbing weakness in the underbelly of these numbers and hopes. As many have noted during Hispanic Heritage Month, education is key to Hispanic success in America. I feel that the break-down in our public education system affects minorities and Hispanics more than others. Federal programs that reach our public schools and universities account for about 7 percent of all their resources. A disproportionate share of these federal resources reaches minority students in such programs as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Yet, the effectiveness of this federal investment is still questionable for many reasons, mainly significant and continuing lags in educational attainment and drop outs. Clearly, these are related. Bilingual education is most often funded with federal support, even though two-thirds of Spanish-speaking Latinos in our country are educated in English only classrooms. The federally funded TRIO programs help to identify and tutor minority students bound for college, and federally subsidized student loans help to keep students in college. In an era when we face competition from countries all around the world like Mexico and China, we need to do all we can to keep our national competitive advantage, especially in the scientific and technical fields. There is no question that the required formal education is now higher for these fields, and it is disheartening to see so many Latinos dropping out of high school. I will personally be looking more closely at successful programs like ``Cada Cabeza Es Un Mundo'' ("Each Mind Is A World") in California and Aspectos Culturales (Cultural Aspects) of Santa Fe, New Mexico. As we debate ESEA reauthorization, I will encourage more locally based efforts to include parents and other role models to participate in improving the educational environment for all students, especially those most likely to drop out. Dropout rates among newer Latino immigrants are the highest among all ethnic groups with the exception of American Indians, who make up less than one percent of our population. Current reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) place the drop-out rate for Hispanics who are born outside the U.S. at 38.6%. For first generation Hispanics the drop-out rate is 15.4%. For Hispanics beyond the first generation in America, the drop-out rate is slightly higher at 17.7%. Overall, including foreign born Latinos, the Hispanic drop-out rate is 25.3% compared to 7.6% for whites and 13.4% for blacks. We cannot tolerate drop-out rates like these. As our economy demands higher education, and jobs are not being filled for lack of education or experience, the critical value of achievement in education becomes an issue for all of us in the Congress to note. The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) released an important report documenting the strong link between education and employment for Hispanics. It is entitled, ``Education=Success: Empowering Hispanic Youth and Adults.'' We have federal programs that address virtually every aspect of education, from Headstart to advanced degrees in science. Yet too many Latinos are being left behind at a time when we pride ourselves in an economy that is surging ahead. We need to make our great American advancements in mathematics, science, and engineering more available to all striving students, especially Latino students who drop out more often than most students. Bill Gates recognized this problem. He recently announced his recent billion dollar donation to minority education, much of which will go to Latino children. He saw the importance of reaching and inspiring Latinos, Blacks, and other minorities to attain higher degrees in science and mathematics. He put his foundation money behind this idea. It is time to refocus and re-energize our federal efforts to help Latinos and others in need of educational assistance. This is not a time to see more and more Latinos falling behind in school just when more formal education is essential to job market participation. When we celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Month in the year 2000, I hope to be able to report more progress in private lending to Hispanic businesses and better federal support for Hispanic education. Now that Hispanic Americans have become a new economic, cultural, and political force among us, we need to recommit our efforts to see that our financial institutions treat them fairly and that Hispanics are suitably educated for a future we will all live and prosper in together.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in conjunction with Hispanic Heritage Month I am introducing the Palace of the Governors Expansion Act. The Palace is a symbol of Hispanic influence in the United States and truly shows the coming together of many cultures in the New World--the various Native American, Hispanic and Anglo peoples who have lived in the region for over four centuries. It is appropriate that during Hispanic Heritage Month that a bill should be introduced to preserve a priceless collection of Spanish Colonial, Iberian Colonial paintings, artifacts, maps, books, guns, costumes, photographs. The collection includes such historically unique items as the helmets and armor worn by the Don Juan Onate expedition conquistadors who established the first capital in the United States, San Juan de los Caballeros, in July of 1598. It includes the Vara Stick, a type of yardstick used to measure land grants and other real property boundaries in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. We have all heard of Geronimo. The Collection includes a rifle dropped by one of his men during a raid in the Black Range area of Western New Mexico. We have all heard of Pancho Villa. His activities in the Southwest come alive when viewing some of the artifacts included in the Palace of the Governors Collection. The Columbus, New Mexico Railway Station clock was shot in the pendulum, freezing for all history the moment that Pancho Villa's raid and invasion began. It is part of the collection, but you wouldn't know it because there is no room to display it. Brigadier General Stephen Watts Kearny was posted to New Mexico during the Mexican War. He commanded the Army of the West as they traveled from the Santa Fe trail to occupy the territories of New Mexico and California. As Kearny travelled, he carried a field desk which he used to write letters, diaries, orders and other historical documents. It is part of the collection, but you can't see it because there is no display space for it in the Palace of the Governors. Many of us have read books by D. H. Lawrence, but none of us have seen the note from his mother that is part of the collection. There are more than 800,000 other historic photographs, guns, costumes, maps, books and handicrafts. Today, where are these treasures that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to make part of the Smithsonian housed now? Where is this collection that has been designated as National Treasures by the National Trust for Historic preservation kept? In the basement of a 400 year old building. It is a national travesty. This legislation would right this wrong by authorizing funds for a Palace of the Governors Expansion Annex. The entire project will cost $32 million. The legislation authorizes a $15 million federal grant if the Museum can match the grant on a 50-50 basis. The Palace of the Governors has acquired a half block right behind the current Palace. Obtaining this valuable real estate is evidence of the ingenuity and commitment of those involved in preserving the collection. Real estate near Santa Fe's plaza is seldom for sale at any price, much less an affordable price. Palace of the Governors has been the center of administrative and cultural activity over a vast region in the Southwest since its construction as New Mexico's second capitol in Santa Fe by Governor Pedro de Peralta in 1610. The building is the oldest continuously occupied public building in the United States. Since its creation, the Museum of New Mexico has worked to protect and promote Hispanic, Southwest and Native American arts and crafts. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation saving this important collection. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my honor today to introduce a Senate resolution honoring a wonderful man and public servant, John E. Cook. The National Park Service recently celebrated its 83rd birthday, and for more than half that time--43 years--John served the Service with distinction, grit and integrity. John E. Cook most recently served as Director of the Intermountain Region of the National Park Service, which stretches from Canada to Mexico and covers eight states, including Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. There he oversaw 87 diverse park units, including national parks, national monuments, national preserves, and national recreation areas. Since I have been a Senator from New Mexico, John and I have worked on various, and sometimes contentious, park issues. I have always appreciated our relationship, and his frankness and competence in dealing with issues. Anyone who knows John would agree he is a great guy. Before starting his work for the National Park Service, he worked as a farm and ranch hand--and I've even heard a few good stories from his days as a rodeo cowboy. John began his Park Service career as a mule skinner at what is now Saguaro National Park, and he has worked as a fire fighter, laborer, ranger, superintendent, and regional director throughout the western United States. In addition to being a strong manager of people and parks, linking cultural and natural resource management, John has worked diligently to promote understanding of American Indians. Former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall appointed John superintendent at Canyon de Chelly National Monument in Arizona partially because he speaks Navajo. He has received awards for his work in parks around the Navajo Nation, and has taught other park staff on American Indians' connection to lands that are now national parks. The National Park Service owes John Cook a debt of gratitude, and the many honors he has received in his service will not repay what he has done for the parks of the west. I only hope that he will enjoy his extra free time to get in some hunting--a passion both he and I enjoy. I am pleased to offer this resolution, and I thank my colleagues for joining me in honoring this fine man.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 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 amounts provided for emergency requirements.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I said earlier this week, I oppose this treaty for two major reasons: (1) the treaty cannot be considered apart from other major arms control agreements in to which the United States has entered; and (2) Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship has not yet been given enough time to prove whether or not it will give us the assurance we need in the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapons without physical testing. However, the vote by the Senate today to reject this treaty was ill- timed and this poor timing could have adverse consequences in the world. No need exists now for a vote; after all, the United States is not now testing and has no plans in the immediate future to do so. This has been recognized by proponents and opponents of this treaty who have asked for delay in the vote. I have attempted, with many others, during the last 2 weeks to help forge some path out of the parliamentary impasse in which the Senate is currently involved. Nonetheless, that has not been successful. We have not found any such path. I think that is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I might say treaties don't really die, even when they are defeated; they are returned to the Executive Calendar of the Senate. Therefore, we will have another chance to debate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the next Congress, or years thereafter. It may very well be that, by then, my concerns about the overall strategic arms strategies and their relationship to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty can be alleviated. And if the potential for stockpile stewardship during that decade can be realized, perhaps I will be able to vote for the treaty in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there can be no question that this debate and the vote which might occur are very significant and historic events for the United States. I very much want to be in favor of the treaty but I cannot favor the treaty because I believe essentially it jeopardizes U.S. security. I wish every Senator had the opportunities I have had for the last 5\1/2\ years. I say that knowing full well my friend from Arizona, while he is not on the committee that funds the stockpile stewardship, is one of the rare exceptions in that he and a few other Senators have learned and worked very diligently to understand what we have been doing since we decided on behalf of the Senate in a Mark Hatfield amendment that we would not test nuclear weapons. What has been the U.S. response to our scientific and nuclear community? Essentially, what we have been busy doing can be encapsulated in the words ``science-based stockpile stewardship.'' One might say, since that pertains to the safety of the weapons system, what we used to do could be called nuclear testing stockpile stewardship. That occurred since the beginning of our nuclear weapons programs. The United States had a formidable, perhaps the world's best, system of underground testing. Testing became very important to those laboratories--there are now three that are principally called nuclear deterrent or stockpile stewardship laboratories. I am privileged to have two of them in my State. When I come to the floor, go to meetings, and talk about the fact this is an important program and these laboratories are important, it hardly ever comes into focus like it is today, like it was in our conference at noon, and like it has been for the last week as Senator Jon Kyl and others have spoken to the fact that what the United States has been trying to do is develop a science-based system. This system means supercomputer simulation and other techniques and skills to see what is going on in a nuclear weapon without any testing to assure the parts that might be wearing out are discernible and can be replaced and that the weapon, indeed, is safe. Frankly, if nothing else, I pray this debate will cause Senators and Representatives, in particular in the important committees of jurisdiction, to understand the importance of this program if the United States continues on a path of no testing, for whatever period of time--and who knows, we may do that in spite of this treaty not being ratified by the United States. I do not want to engage in a maybe-and- maybe-not discussion on that, but the United States is trying hard. Nonetheless, my principal concerns about this Treaty--and there are many--center around four reasons, and three of them have to do with science-based stockpile stewardship. First, the science-based stockpile stewardship is new; it is nascent; it is just starting. It is not finished. It has not been completed. It is not perfected. As a matter of fact, to the Senators who are on the floor, probably some of the most profound testimony regarding America's stockpile of nuclear weapons occurred in the Armed Services Committee last week when sitting at the witness table was the Secretary of Energy, surrounded by the three National Laboratory Directors. It goes without saying that our country owes them a high degree of gratitude and thanks for what they do, for they oversee the safety of our weapons under this new approach which is very different for them, and that is, no testing; they must certify that everything is OK without testing. Scientists and physicists steeped in knowledge about nuclear weapons--one of them is a nuclear weapons expert of the highest order--testified, and I will quote in a while some of the difficulties they see with reference to their responsibility. Secondly, I do not know what to do about it, but the difficulty, as they testified, in securing the funding they need without new mandates imposed upon them is very uncertain. The difficulty is real and it is uncertain as to whether they will continually over time get sufficient resources. Third is, and I say this with a clear hope that the Secretary of Energy and the President will listen, the unknown impact of the failure on the part of this administration to proceed with reorganizing the Department of Energy on stewardship efforts. I do not want to belabor in this speech the efforts that many of us went to in streamlining accountability of the nuclear weapons programs within the Energy Department. We called it a semiautonomous agency--so that Department, which is in charge of the nuclear weapons, including the profound things we are talking about with respect to their safety, will not be bogged down by rules, regulations, personnel, and other things from a Department as diverse as the Department of Energy. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced they should get on with doing what Congress told them to do instead of this waffling out of it by putting Secretary Richardson in charge of both the Energy Department and a new independent agency-- which was supposed to be created so it would be semiautonomous, and he will head them both under an interpretation that cannot be legal--just indicates to me that they are not quite willing in this Department of Energy to face up to the serious problems of our nuclear stockpile and such things as science-based stockpile stewardship. Lastly, and for many who talked on the floor, the most important issue is the ambiguities and threats to our international security at the present time. I will talk about that a bit because some Senators are asking: How can you be against the treaty and at the same time say we ought to put it off? Let me repeat, my last concern is the ambiguities and threats to our international security at present. I will proceed quickly with an elaboration. When the United States declared a unilateral moratorium in 1992, the onus was on the scientists and National Laboratories to design and implement a program that would ensure the safety, reliability, and performance of our nuclear arsenal without testing. This is an onerous, complicated task that has yet to be fully implemented and validated, and I just stated that. Science-based stockpile stewardship was designed to replace nuclear tests through increased understanding of the nuclear physics in conjunction with unprecedented simulation capabilities. This requires a lot of money. In fact, full implementation of the stewardship program is more expensive than reliance on nuclear tests, and I do not say this as an excuse for moving back to testing. The truth of the matter is it proves we are very willing to keep our stockpiles safe, reliable, and sound, even if it costs us more money, so long as we do not do underground testing on the other side of the ledger. There is no question that in addition, the validity of this approach remains unproven, and key facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility, are behind schedule and over budget, and it is supposed to be one of the integral parts of being able to determine the stockpile confidence. This program will attempt to preserve the viability of existing weapons indefinitely. We no longer possess the production capabilities to replace the weapons, and maybe Senator Kyl has referred to that. We have already gotten rid of our production facilities. Currently, seven highly sophisticated warhead designs comprise our arsenal. Each weapon contains thousands of components, all of which are subject to decay and corrosion over time. Any small flaw in any individual component would render the weapons ineffective. In addition, because we intend to preserve, rather than replace, these weapons with new designs, aging effects on these weapons remains to be seen. I quote Dr. Paul Robinson of Sandia National Laboratory in his testimony last week: Confidence in the reliability and safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile will eventually decline without nuclear testing. . . . Whether the risk that will arise from this decline in confidence will be acceptable or not is a policy issue that must be considered in light of the benefits expected to be realized [if you have a] test ban. Are we ready today to accept a decline in confidence of our nuclear deterrent? Can we today accurately weigh the benefits on either side of the issue? I do not think so. On the other hand, we risk complete collapse of ongoing disarmament initiatives by prematurely rejecting this treaty. That is why I believe it is not inconsistent that I am not for it, but I would not like it to be voted on. There are substantial risks with unknown consequences. Success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program requires recruiting the brightest young scientists. We have to begin to substitute for the older heads who know everything there is about it and contain all of the so-called corporate memory with reference to the science testing and the like. My colleagues all know that I have fought very hard to get the money for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. We came perilously close this year to having this part of our budget cut by as much as $1 billion by the House. I think after weeks of saying we would not go to conference--it is not worth going to conference to fight--it was believed it would be better to stay at last year's level. They finally came to the point where we have a Stockpile Stewardship Program funded, but in an almost irreverent way. Dr. Browne of Los Alamos said: I am confident that a fully supported and sustained program will enable us to continue to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing. However, I am concerned about several trends that are reducing my confidence level each year. These include annual shortfalls in planned budgets, increased numbers of findings in the stockpile that need resolution, an augmented workload beyond our original plans, and unfunded mandates that cut into the program. It is pretty clear that it is not what they would like it to be. He also said he was concerned about other significant disturbances this year in the stability of the support from the government, partially in response to concerns about espionage. This has sent a mixed message to the Laboratory that will make it more difficult to carry out the stewardship program. According to this good doctor who heads Los Alamos, the task of recruiting and training the requisite talent is hindered by the current security climate at the laboratories. I strongly believe that the establishment of a semi-independent agency for nuclear weapons activities will significantly enhance efforts to ensure the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. At the same time, this reorganization will require many months to accomplish. I ask my colleagues the following question: Should we make an international declaration regarding U.S. nuclear tests in the midst of a complete overhaul of the Department responsible for those weapons? I don't think so. Such an action would be premature. Lastly, today we cannot clearly define the direction the world will take on nuclear issues. This concern speaks both for and against the treaty. Treaty proponents believe that U.S. ratification and the treaty's entry into force will curb proliferation. This treaty, if fully implemented, would enhance our ability to detect nuclear tests and create a deterrent to nations that may aspire to possess nuclear weapons capabilities. However, others say, without question, this treaty is not a silver bullet. The administration has touted it as such. This treaty is only one measure of many that should comprise a solid nonproliferation agenda. For example, this treaty would be acceptable if accompanied by substantive bilateral commitments with Russia and multilateral commitments among the declared nuclear powers. A framework for international disarmament, nonproliferation, and stability may very well include a Test Ban Treaty, but it should also be accompanied by binding commitments on future disarmament objectives, such as the Fissile Materials Cutoff Regime, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We have only one treaty--one facet of a complex picture--before us today. It may contribute to achieving other disarmament objectives, but we are being asked to wager our nuclear deterrent on the hope that formal commitments from other nuclear powers and threshold states will be forthcoming. We sign on the dotted line that we will not utilize testing to maintain our stockpile, and we plead with the world to follow suit. Or we reject the Treaty now and eliminate others' potential hesitation regarding future tests. Only 23 of the 44 nations required for the Treaty's entry into force have ratified it. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China have not ratified it. Neither India nor Pakistan have even signed the treaty. We should not rush to vote on this matter. Regardless of the vote count, we risk either permanent damage to our non-proliferation objectives or the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Continuing our moratorium on nuclear testing and not acting on this Treaty is the best course of action for now. We have time. Time to observe international changes and formulate a nuclear posture suitable for a new era. Time to evaluate the future of our bilateral relations with Russia and China. And time to first ensure the success of Stockpile Stewardship. U.S. ratification would provide a positive signal and increase our leverage at the negotiating table in our pursuit of many non- proliferation objectives. If the Senate does not ratify this Treaty, which appears highly likely at the present, many of our current foreign policy initiatives will unravel. Most importantly, a negative vote on the CTBT will further erode the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, itself. We secured indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 by committing to lead negotiations, sign and ratify the Test Ban Treaty. There is an explicit link between our Article VI commitments to disarm and the CTBT. Many other steps could be taken to demonstrate a good faith effort toward nuclear disarmament. The Test Ban Treaty is just one element of a comprehensive strategy to reduce nuclear dangers. The U.S. and Russia have already radically reduced stockpiles from their Cold War levels. Progress has been made in the negotiations for a fissile materials cutoff regime. Currently, all of the declared nuclear powers have a moratorium on testing, and two of those, Britain and France, have signed and ratified the Test Ban Treaty. If the Senate votes against this Treaty, we will send the signal to the world that the U.S. has no intent to make good on its earlier commitments. START II will wither in the Duma; negotiations with Russia on START III and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty will most likely falter. We would most likely witness a rash of nuclear tests in response. Killing this Treaty would inevitably also impact upcoming elections in Russia. To the Russians our actions in Kosovo underscored NATO's willingness to engage in out-of-area operations, even in violation of sovereignty. Anti-U.S. sentiments in Russia soared. Not only would a down vote on this Treaty play into the hands of the Communists and Nationalists, U.S. actions would essentially give Russia the go-ahead to begin testing a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons to secure its border against NATO. We risk little by postponing consideration of this Treaty. We put our most vital security interests at stake by rushing to judgement on it. In sum, defeat of this Treaty at this point will have a devastating impact on numerous current foreign policy initiatives that are clearly in the U.S. national interest. We can anticipate an unraveling of initiatives toward bilateral disarmament with Russia, and we will forfeit any remaining hope of preventing a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. We will open wide the door for China to proceed with tests to validate any nuclear designs based on the alleged stolen W-88 blueprints. At the same time, Stockpile Stewardship is as yet unproven. We still do not fully understand the aging effects on our nuclear arsenal. Such aging effects relate both to the components which comprise the nuclear weapons and the scientific experts who initially designed and tested them. Also, as witnessed again this year, the budget for the full implementation of Stockpile Stewardship is anything but secure. In light of the current situation, ratification of this Treaty may put us at risk. The timing of this debate is such that I have to weigh very carefully between the negative impact of this Treaty's possible defeat and the annual budgetary struggles for Stockpile Stewardship in combination with the scientific community's own doubts about the Stockpile Stewardship program. We should maintain the moratorium on testing and postpone the vote on this matter. It is irresponsible and dangerous to proceed now with the debate and vote on this Treaty. We have nothing to lose by maintaining our current status of a unilateral moratorium and having signed but not yet ratified the Test Ban Treaty. But we have everything to lose regardless of the outcome of this vote. I thank the Senate for listening and the leadership for granting me this time. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2000. The conference report provides $68.6 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $48.5 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. Within this amount, $8.7 billion in BA, and $8.3 billion in outlays is designated as emergency spending for farmers who have experienced weather-related disasters, and for additional market transition payments to compensate farmers for depressed commodity prices. All of the discretionary funding in this bill is nondefense spending. When outlays from prior- year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the conference report totals $73.0 billion in BA and $55.7 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) conference allocation totals $73.0 billion in BA and $55.7 billion in outlays. Within this amount, $22.7 billion in BA and $22.6 billion in outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending, of which $8.7 billion in BA, and $8.3 billion in outlays are designated as emergency spending. For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all the mandatory savings in the bill, the conference report is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $8.7 billion in BA and $8.5 billion in outlays above the 1999 level for discretionary spending, $1.1 billion in BA and $1.0 billion in outlays above the Senate-passed bill, and $8.2 billion in BA and $7.7 billion in outlays above the President's request for these programs. I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 302(b) allocation. I appreciate the committee's support for a number of ongoing projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman has the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator did it. Does he still need the 2 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I am pleased to say I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I have helped Senator Bingaman with it. This is a good amendment. We aren't asking for any money. We are not asking that any law be changed. We are merely saying that something is not right for our State. The reimbursement--or some aspect of how we are paying doctors under Medicare--is causing us to have much lower fees than the surrounding States, and as a result two things are happening: One, doctors are leaving. In a State such as ours, we can ill afford that. Second, we are being told it is harder and harder to get doctors to come to our State. That was not the case years ago. They loved New Mexico. They came for lots of reasons. But certainly we cannot be an underprivileged State in terms of what we pay our doctors--be a poor State in addition--and expect our citizens to get good health care. We want to know what the real facts are: Why is this the case? Is it the result of the way the geographic evaluation is applied to our State because maybe rural communities aren't getting the right kind of emphasis in that formula? Whatever it is, we want to know. When we know, fellow Senators, we can assure Members, if we find out it is not right and it is not fair, we will be on the floor to talk about some real changes. Until we have that, we ask Members for help in obtaining a study. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask if Senator Kennedy is on the bill or something else?

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I note that the Administration strongly opposes any provisions that would drain anticipated budget surpluses prior to fulfilling our commitment to save Social Security. The House bill asks us to do for aviation what isn't done for education, veterans' benefits, national defense, or environmental protection. As important as aviation investment is, it would be fiscally irresponsible of us to grant it a bye from the budget constraints we face with in funding virtually every other program.

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the comment of the Senator from Washington and look forward to working with him on this important issue.

Mr. DOMENICI. I associate myself with the remarks of my Leader and would also note that there has been much discussion by the proponents of changing the budgetary treatment of the FAA accounts because of the need to spend more from the airport and airways trust fund. I would like to set the record straight--for the last five years, we have spent more on the aviation accounts than the airport and airways trust fund has taken in. In addition, the Department of Transportation has estimated that we have spent in excess of $6 billion more on FAA programs than total receipts into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund over the life of the trust fund.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Leader's understanding is correct. After discussions with the managers of the reauthorization bill, I am comfortable with the assurances of the Majority Leader and the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee on their commitment to preserve the current budgetary treatment for aviation accounts in the conferenced bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Over the last several years, there has been a lot of talk and support on the House side for the idea of changing the budgetary status of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. In fact, the House's FAA Reauthorization bill, the so-called AIR-21, would take the Airport and Airways Trust Fund off-budget. Some say the House's real intent is to create a new budgetary firewall for aviation, similar to those created for the highway and mass transit trust funds under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). I've been hearing distant, low rumbles from a minority of my colleagues on this side of the Capitol. They, too, would like an off- budget status or firewall for the Aviation Trust Fund. Let me reiterate my response to these proposals--These proposals are dangerous and fiscally irresponsible. They undermine the struggle to control spending, reduce taxes, and balance the budget. Taking the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget would allow FAA spending to be exempt from all congressional budget control mechanisms. It would provide aviation with a level of protection now provided only to Social Security. Important spending control mechanisms such as budget caps, pay-as-you-go rules, and annual congressional oversight and review would no longer apply. A firewall scenario has very similar problems. A firewall would prevent the Appropriations Committee from reducing trust fund spending, even if the FAA was not ready to spend the money in a given year. If the Appropriations Committee wanted to increase FAA spending above the firewall, it would have to come from the discretionary spending cap, a very difficult choice given the tight discretionary caps through 2002. These proposals would also create problems in FAA management and oversight. Both an off-budget or firewall status would reduce management and oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund spending out of the budget process. Placing the FAA and the trust fund on autopilot by locking-up funding would result in fewer opportunities to review and effect needed reforms. This is very dangerous. There would be little leverage to induce the FAA to strive for higher standards of performance. Now is the time for more management and oversight by both the Authorizing and Appropriations committee, not less. The Budget Enforcement Act and other budget laws were created to keep runaway spending in check. I oppose, as we all should, budgetary changes that would make it more difficult to control spending, weaken congressional oversight, create a misleading federal budget, and violate the spirit of the law. Some of my colleagues object to the building of money in the Aviation Trust Fund. They contend that all of the revenues should be spent on airport improvements. They say that all of the aviation related user taxes should be dedicated to aviation, and should not be used for other spending programs, deficit reduction, or tax cuts. On the contrary, total FAA expenditures have far exceeded the resources flowing into the trust fund. Since the trust fund was created in 1971 to 1998, total expenditures have exceeded total tax revenues by more than $6 billion. This is because the Aviation Trust Fund resources have been supplemented with General Revenues. The purpose of the General Fund contribution is that the federal government should reimburse the FAA for the direct costs of public-sector use of the air traffic control system. The FAA estimated in 1997 that the public-sector costs incurred on the air traffic control system is 7.5 percent. In 1999, a total of 15 percent of federal aviation funding came from the General Fund. Since the creation of the Aviation Trust Fund, the General Fund subsidy for the FAA is 38 percent of all spending. This far exceeds the 7.5 percent public-sector costs that FAA estimated. Therefore, over the life of the trust fund, the public sector has subsidized the cost of the private-sector users of the FAA by $46 billion. Let this Congress not make the fiscally irresponsible decision to insulate aviation spending from any fiscal restraint imposed by future budget resolutions; to make aviation spending off-limits to Congressional Appropriations Committees. Let us not grant aviation a special budgetary privilege, and make it more difficult for future Congresses and Administrations to enact major reforms in airport and air traffic control funding and operations. Taking the Aviation Trust Funds off-budget or creating a firewall-- these proposals are not fit to fly! I yield the floor. I thank the chairman for yielding.