Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might use a few moments while the manager is waiting to give general observations. I am totally in favor of the bill. I just want to talk generally about the Airport and Airways Trust Fund.

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. I hereby submit revisions to the 2000 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget authority Outlays Deficit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Allocation: General purpose discretionary............. 534,542,000,000 544,481,000,000 .................... Violent crime reduction fund.............. 4,500,000,000 5,554,000,000 .................... Highways.................................. .................... 24,574,000,000 .................... Mass transit.............................. .................... 4,117,000,000 .................... Mandatory................................. 321,502,000,000 304,297,000,000 ....................

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 continuing disability reviews (CDRs), adoption assistance, 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 Current Allocation: General purpose discretionary.............. 534,115 544,113 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 and fellow Senators, some of you will not think what I am going to tell you is even possible. But, believe it or not, before I went to law school, I was a schoolteacher. I taught mathematics in junior high school in the public school system. I loved it. I had a class in the morning that was made up of half the students who didn't know how to add 6 and 6--they were in the eighth grade--and half the students who were ready for geometry. I guarantee that if the U.S. Government, back when we were trying to teach in Albuquerque, NM, in Garfield Junior High, said, We want to give you the same program as we give a junior high school in New York City, do you think I would have jumped to it and said, Give it to me? Of course I would not have. I would have said, What is it for? Then I would have said, Won't you let me use it for what I know the kids need or are you going to tell me what they need? In essence, that little classroom and that little example is a microcosm of this issue. This issue across this land is whether or not the U.S. Government can help a failing education system with more targeted programs--more programs that say, use it our way in every way or you don't use it. It is a presumption on our part that it is the very best way to use the money and it is the best way to make our students achieve more--none of which is true and none of which will bear out in the marketplace of educating young people. What we have today is an effort to use $1.2 billion of education funding by authorizing on an appropriations bill a way of spending that is not now authorized in the law. We will not even wait for a couple of months for the committee that has been having hearing upon hearing to come forth with a bill that puts everything into some perspective as to the small Federal Government's share--and small it is; 7 percent of public education is the U.S. Government. And that is found in this bill, 7 percent. Some people talk as if we are the driving force of education. We would have to be miracle workers for our 7 percent to really make schools get significantly better. But they would take $1.2 billion that is here to be used in a new way under a new law, and they would say: We know best; spend it for more teachers in every school in America. Frankly, it was also said on the floor that every superintendent wanted it that way. I only had a chance to call four--Belen, Artesia, Cloudcroft, Capitan. None of them thought that more teachers was the biggest priority for their school systems and their problems. Some said they would improve themselves with alternative learning. Some said they would improve themselves with math and science. One said they would dramatically improve themselves in science. Frankly, that is what this is all about. Under the guise of saying we know best and, please, under the guise of saying more teachers must be met for everybody, we are going to spend $1.2 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money by mandating that you use it for more teachers or you can't use it. I would just suggest that in my home city school district--where I taught school years ago when I taught mathematics in the junior high--I am not at all sure they would take this money and put it in more teachers if you gave them the option. They are having a crisis in the school system there. But I don't believe they would be saying the thing they need the most is more teachers. They might need bonuses for good teachers. They might need some bonuses for teachers who are indeed excellent and can't make ends meet because we can't pay enough. They would find all kinds of things and put them on the table. Ask them. If you really said--let's just pick a number, the $20 million you will get, or the $50 million you will get--Albuquerque, you can use it all for teachers or in enhancing the opportunity for achievement, which is our goal, you can use it in other ways and be accountable for it, I doubt very much if they would in my home State all choose more teachers. Don't anybody miss the point. If you vote against Senator Murray's amendment, you still vote for the $1.2 billion to go to our States in the appropriate formula, which nobody is arguing about, to be used where they think it is best to enhance the achievement level of our public school students. There is much that could be said. When the debate ensues on the major American overhaul of education, we will all be here talking about some new reform. But for now, I think in my 5 minutes I have expressed my views as best I can. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Committee on the Judiciary requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 28, 1999 beginning at 2:00 p.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``Public Ownership of the U.S. Stock Markets.''

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, at 10 a.m. on nominations.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 1999, at 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to hold two hearings.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Year 2000 Technology Problem be permitted to meet on September 28, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada, my ranking member, does he have any time problems that would make his schedule better if he went first?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. We have before us the Energy and Water Development Act, which is the appropriations bill for the year 2000. Last night, the House passed this conference report by a vote of 327-87, and I hope the Senate will also overwhelmingly support this conference report. Incidentally, while this is a small bill in terms of total dollars in comparison to some of the very large bills, such as Labor-Health and Human Services, and many others, this is a very important bill. A lot of Senators don't know, and a lot of people don't know, that the title of this subcommittee and this bill--energy and water development--is kind of a misnomer because if you wanted to put in the major things that are in this bill that are of significance to America's well-being and security, you would hardly think that an energy and water development bill would have that in it. But this bill funds the entire research, development, maintenance, and safety of the nuclear weapons of the United States. It funds the three major National Laboratories which are frequently called America's treasures of science. One is in Los Alamos, NM. The history of why it got started is well known and why it was selected to be up on that mountain. A sister institution is in California, which is called Lawrence Livermore, and there is an engineering facility that is different from those two. The other two labs are used to design and develop the weapons themselves; that is, the bombs. Incidentally, we are not building any new bombs now. People keep challenging us when we put money in this bill, asking us how many weapons we are building. The argument is that Russia keeps building them and we are not building them. We are not terribly frightened about that. They build them differently, and they have a different philosophy about how to build them than we do. These National Laboratories are engaged in the mission of maintaining these nuclear weapons indefinitely, without underground testing. For all of the history of the building and development of nuclear weapons, the State of Nevada could be added as the fourth site that was of significance for America to keep its weapons of a nuclear nature safe, sound, reliable, and capable of doing what we expect them to do. That is because we tested these weapons underground, in cavernous underground facilities loaded with all kinds of equipment that did measurements, and that was in the great State of Nevada. Now, those are shrunk because we have adopted a policy, sometimes called the Hatfield amendment, by a vote in the Senate, signed by the President, which says we don't do any underground testing. The question is, If we are not going to do any testing, how do we make sure the weapons are reliable, safe, efficient, and effective? So there is a new concept and these three laboratories, in conjunction with the Nevada underground test site, which does some lesser experiments--not the nuclear blasts--are engaged in trying to prove that our weapons are safe and sound. If parts need to be replaced over time, we are able to know which ones, how, why, and that is called science-based stockpile stewardship--science-based stockpile stewardship--instead of science-based underground testing. So we have to develop new kinds of activities at these laboratories, and it is about a 5-year venture. This is the sixth year of funding. Maybe this year, we will have put it into the lexicon of programs that America has on the nuclear weapons side, where maybe it will be permanent and accepted. As we discuss the international treaty prohibiting underground testing, there will be a lot of discussion about whether this approach is adequate over time to let us sign a treaty that we will never do underground testing again. That will be a separate debate, but it will turn, to some extent, on the credibility and reliability of this science-based stockpile stewardship. So I am very pleased we were able to fund that at a very healthy level, and I am pleased that we have been able to get this bill to this point. The House and Senate passed versions of their respective bills and had very different priorities. I am not critical, but for some time I worried whether we simply would be able to reach an agreement because we were so far apart in terms of the amount of funding for this bill and the amount of money for the nuclear weapons side. However, a very distinguished California legislator who has been in the House a long time is Chairman Packard. He chairs the subcommittee in the House. We met 2 weeks ago and dedicated ourselves to a chairmen's recommendation on all items. I will tell you that I have the greatest respect for Chairman Packard. He is new at this job, but he is not new at being a legislator. Together, we have overcome differences that, had they occurred between two other chairmen, might have been irreconcilable. I must acknowledge openly that this subcommittee has a wonderful minority leader in the name of the minority whip for the Democratic Party, Senator Reid. Senator Harry Reid understands these issues. He is growing, and if he is not already, he will be a national spokesman when we get off track, and don't worry about maintaining this nuclear stockpile until we have a different world or until we have a different policy about what we are going to do with our nuclear weapons and how many we are going to have, et cetera. So in the conference report before you, we have recognized that the Senate is as interested in water projects as is the House, and the conference has provided water projects. We all know what those are. They are in every State. They are flood protection projects, Corps of Engineers projects, dams and the like; they are the dredging of the harbors of America to keep them sound and in an appropriate maintenance of depth and the like. We have moved in their direction by increasing the water projects in our bill $415 million over the level proposed in the Senate. However, as we have done this, we have been very strict about not including newly authorized projects included in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 or any that might be brought to our attention. Even those that were authorized in that act are so numerous and so expensive that, if we started to give one Senator one piece of that, either Democrat or Republican, or similarly in the House, there would be no end to how many projects we would have to fund. So we stuck to our guns in that regard and we did not put any of those projects, and we did not put in any unauthorized projects, which I think many people urged us to do over time, and we are pleased to make that announcement. As I indicated, if we tried to add those, we would be overwhelmed and we probably would not be here today. As we have increased water projects, we decreased funding for some of the accounts the Senate proposed. The weapons activities of the environmental management, science, and energy research accounts have borne a portion of the reduction. I am here to say that we have done quite well, and I believe those programs can continue at a pretty good level, in particular, those centering on science-based stockpile stewardship. Finally, we had to deal with a number of very onerous, general provisions in the House bill, and I believe those issues have been resolved to our satisfaction. I don't believe, on many of them, there is any concern at this point about the way we wrapped them up, be it on power marketing or on the nuclear weapons or the laboratories. I need to address Secretary Richardson's views. First of all, I am very pleased the President of the United States has indicated that he will sign the Defense authorization bill. That is the bill that authorizes the entire funding for the military of the United States, which also bears an amendment that will establish within the Department of Energy a new entity, a semiautonomous agency that will be in charge of all the nuclear weapons activity--the most significant reform in perhaps 28 to 30 years in a department that has grown like Topsy and is filled with programs that don't necessarily relate one to another. We will carve out of it a management scheme that will be far more accountable, reliable, and trustworthy than we had before. Now, obviously, those specifics in that new scheme are not funded precisely, but they are funded in the general sense, and we hope Secretary Richardson and the President will begin quickly to implement that new management scheme so we can show the American people that there is a better way to do it. None of this casts any aspersions on Secretary Richardson. He inherited this department, which has no accountability to speak of, with reference to secret activities. It is very hard to find who is responsible if something goes wrong. In many other respects, it is very dysfunctional in terms of the way it manages things. We have attempted to pursue with vigor some new management projects in terms of major projects. Secretary Richardson in his press release of last night said we did not do well enough, we deny that $35 million in cybersecurity upgrades. I want to address the situation in two regards. First, in response to the problems at the Department, whether cybersecurity or other problems, Secretary Richardson has taken an oversight approach. That means more independent, internal watchdogs, security czar, a counterintelligence czar. As many as my colleagues know, more layering at more levels of management, while well intentioned, can have the opposite effect. Making watchdog groups responsible for safety, health, or security removes that from the day-to-day responsibilities of the Department employees. I want to address cybersecurity in another manner with reference to the specific item the Secretary raised about not funding $35 million in new money. Let me say what we have funded in that regard: Nuclear safety guards and security, $69.1 million, $10 million over the request to protect against physical and cyberintrusions; security investigations, $35 million, $3 million over the request; independent oversight, $5 million to support the new office reporting directly to the Secretary. We believe when those are added up, that is about all a Department can assimilate unless one assumes there is a renewed vigor in security by overlapping of these new pieces of the Department that the Secretary has announced. We believe when they begin to reorganize this, they will find this is plenty of money to do the security work under the new streamlined agency. We never intended to do anything but fund adequately the notions expressed in the Secretary's letter. He mentioned a project in the State of Tennessee, the Spallation Neutron Source, a new project of high excitement in the science community. It has had difficulty meeting its goals of meeting scheduled attainment of construction, and it may very well be a case of overruns where it will spend more than expected. Nonetheless, it is important we proceed. The House only funded it for $50 million. We funded it for $150 million. I regret to say I could only split the difference--$100 million plus $17 million to operate. Obviously, the Secretary would like $130 or $140 million. I couldn't do it. I hope the project can continue in this scaled-down number. I remain committed. I believe the subcommittee remains committed to it. I think everybody ought to know we will eventually take care of it. It will not be delayed very long based upon underfunding this year. With reference to other matters in this bill, I have worked with the Department on various issues the administration is considering with reference to a possible supplemental request. I suggest it is impossible to fund the Department of Energy request regarding their computers in the weapons complex. They indicate it would cost approximately $450 million next year. That is $150 million per laboratory and $150 million for the production complex. There is no way we could fund that kind of money in these appropriations. We leave it to the administration. If they seek this in a supplemental next year, we will look at it carefully. We stand ready eventually to fund that. It is not possible in a budget of this size to fund this year $450 million for cybersecurity. It is not possible. DOE has also reviewed its fiscal security. I am hearing reports of substantial costs that may need to be incurred in the coming year to improve fiscal security. However, in our conference with the House, it was made clear we have never before been told cybersecurity or fiscal security problems were the result of lack of funding. The problem may very well be more than that and may be a combination of things. We stand ready and willing to help. Senators Kyl and Murkowski have proposed, along with this Senator, reform in the Department which I outlined early in my remarks. When that reform is made and we begin to implement the so-called National Security Administration, I will be open to reviewing all costs necessary to ensure our nuclear weapons complex is safe. I am not going to try to resolve this problem solely by putting huge amounts of new money in before we have the new agency beginning to streamline itself pursuant to the new bill which will soon be signed by the President when he puts his signature on the defense authorization. Regarding wetlands provisions contained in the House version, I will summarize the conference agreement which I think is acceptable to the administration. It is a very difficult issue, and it is very dear to many House Members. The legislation contains $5 million for the Corps to fully implement an administrative appeals process for their regulatory reform. This is the so-called 404 permitting of the Corps: The process shall provide for a single level of appeal for jurisdictional determination. The conferees dropped the language proposed by the House which would have made the determinations the final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, thus permitting early appeal to the Federal court system. The conference agreement also includes language proposed by the House requiring the Corps to prepare a report regarding the impacts of proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit of 25 on the regulatory branch workload and compliance costs. The conference dropped language that would require the report be submitted to Congress by December 30, 1999, and dropped language that would hold matters in abeyance until the report was forthcoming. This part of the bill was worked out carefully with representatives of the executive branch, and I believe it is acceptable to them. I had one other issue I wanted to state here for the Record because my colleagues from the State of Arkansas, Senators Hutchinson and Lincoln, wanted to have explained a project called Grande Prairie in the State of Arkansas which is not funded in this bill. The Grande Prairie project in Arkansas, which has an overall long- term Federal cost of perhaps as much as $245 million, will provide ground water protection for agricultural water supply and environmental restoration in rural areas of Arkansas. Funding at $8 million was provided in 1999 to initiate construction. Since the appropriation, the Corps of Engineers has used only $3.8 million, with $5 million being reprogrammed from the project for use in other activities. This leaves about $1.2 million for use in the year 2000. The Corps has been having problems with local sponsors finalizing their cost-sharing agreement which is reviewed before construction can begin. Some local interests believe it is cheaper for them to find other options rather than to come up with their cost share. For the project to proceed, the cost share agreements must be entered into. The attitude of some is, this is complicating efforts to execute a local cost-sharing agreement. We have clearly indicated that the Corps of Engineers has not been able to use the $8 million appropriated and it is unlikely significant funds can be used in 2000. The conference agreement leaves an estimated $1.2 million as carryover funding, and the managers' statement states that the conferees' expectation is that if issues surrounding the project are resolved, conferees expect the Corps to reprogram funding back to the project for construction. I hope that is satisfactory. I have indicated the same in a letter to Senator Hutchinson, who inquired about this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record. U.S. Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, September 28, 1999. Senator Tim Hutchinson, Washington, DC. Dear Tim: I want to assure you of my personal commitment to the success of the Grand Prairie project in Arkansas. This year's Energy and Water Development Act was especially hard to craft. In short, we simply did not have sufficient resources to fund all deserving water projects at the optimum level. In the case of Grand Prairie, it is my understanding that additional funds will not be needed in the coming year because of the availability of funds appropriated last year that have not been spent due to problems negotiating a project cost-sharing agreement. I've attached the language from the conference report that clearly indicates the conferees' action was taken without prejudice. If additional funds are needed in the coming year, the Corps has authority to reprogram funds into the project. Sincerely, Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with that, I am ready to answer any questions. I think it is a good bill. We are within the budget. There is no significant increase over last year, for those who were wondering, in the total cost. So I think we have a bill that ought to get very strong support. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I have to leave the floor for a few minutes. He is probably going to be finished soon. There is nobody else seeking time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Has that time been agreed on?

Mr. DOMENICI. What is that time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back all remaining time I have.

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator's interest and wish to clarify to the Department of Energy that the $1 million should be made available to the Burbank Hospital in Fitchburg, MA, for the under- served population. Budgetary Impact of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2000

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the official Budget Committee scoring of the pending bill--H.R. 2605, the energy and water development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The conference agreement provides $21.3 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $13.3 billion in new outlays to support the programs of the Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and related Federal agencies. The bill provides the bulk of funding for the Department of Energy, including Atomic Energy Defense Activities and civilian energy research and development (R&D) other than fossil energy R&D and energy conservation programs. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the conference report totals $21.3 billion in BA and $20.8 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The conference report is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for BA, and $29 million below the 302(b) allocation for outlays. The conference report is $0.1 billion in BA and $0.5 billion in outlays above the 1999 level. The conference report is $0.3 billion in both BA and outlays below the President's budget request for FY 2000. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the FY 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill conference report be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would be glad to engage in such a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Idaho and a member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with my colleague on the importance that such funding be available.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments on the other side of the aisle about the management of things around here and how we could not get this bill finished on time and what a mess everything is. I remind Senators, obviously, we are going to have to make some major change beyond the process we have because it might startle some to know that since 1950--that is almost 50 years--we have completed our appropriations bills on time twice--twice. What is all the talk about? Since 1950, that side of the aisle has controlled the Senate three-quarters of the time. So three-quarters of the time since 1950, all the appropriations bills--including Labor, Health, and Human Services--have been completed twice on time and sent to the President. I submit, if my colleagues want to get things done on time, let's change the process and let's not do it every year; let's do it every 2 years. At least if we go over, we will be all right for 2 years rather than have it right back in our laps in 6 months, doing it all over again. In addition, I heard from the other side of the aisle some comments about how difficult it was to meet the caps, how difficult it was not to take any money from Social Security, as if it were a Republican problem. One Senator--I will not use names, but the Senator who mentioned that was a Senator who came to the floor and asked for $8 billion on an emergency basis for the farm problem in America. If my colleagues are wondering how come we have a difficult time, it is because somebody comes down and adds $8 billion that we did not expect to spend and we have to accommodate in some way so we do not use Social Security money, and that does not make it any easier. I am not objecting to that. It will probably come out of the Senate and House before long at $7 billion, $7.5 billion, and an overwhelming number of House Members and Senators will think it is right. I am suggesting it is not always those who are trying to manage things on the majority side who cause the problems that make it difficult to get things done. I do not choose to go beyond that. The President submitted a budget to us that was totally in error of the budget caps. It used Social Security money. And then we are criticized because we are having a difficult time dealing with it. The President had new taxes he added and then spent them in his bill. We have chosen to have a policy of no new taxes to meet our appropriations bills. There are a number of things the President did that we cannot do. Here is one: The President is talking about Medicare, saying we ought to reform it before we have a tax cut for the American people. The President had $27 billion of cuts in Medicare in his budget. He did not tell us about that. We told you about that. It is long forgotten. In fact, the number may be higher. It may be 35. Anyway, it is 27 or more. We had to pay for that in our budget; it was not the right thing to do. The President might have thought so, but nobody in the Congress did. It has not been easy. Nonetheless, we are going to have a pretty good year. We are going to have a pretty good year because when we are finished, we will have dramatically increased defense, and part of it will be an emergency because that is what it is. We will get all the appeals done and some of the advance funding that is legitimate and right. The President had $21 billion in advance funding, and now there are people on the other side wondering what that is, as if we invented it. It has been around for a long time. In fact, there is $11 billion of it in the budget we are living with right now, which means nothing more than, you account for the money in the year in which you spend it rather than the year in which you appropriate it. We will have some of that, too--maybe as much as the President had; I don't know. But how are we going to meet these targets if we are not permitted to do that, when the President is challenging us that we are not doing what he wanted us to do--that is his big challenge. How can we do that? I yield the floor. department of interior funding

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his question. I too believe that this resolution will allow Interior Department funding to be continued at fiscal year 1999 levels in accordance with fiscal year 1999 policies through October 21, 1999.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through September 24, 1999. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Res. 209, a resolution to provide budget levels in the Senate for purposes of fiscal year 1999, as amended by S. Res. 312. The budget levels have also been revised to include adjustments made on May 19, 1999, to reflect the amounts provided and designated as emergency requirements. The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $0.5 billion in budget authority and above the budget resolution by $0.2 billion in outlays. Current level is $0.2 billion above the revenue floor in 1999. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $56.0 billion, which is equal to the maximum deficit amount for 1999 of $56.0 billion. Since my last report, dated July 19, 1999, the Congress has passed and the President has signed the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act (P.L. 106-50), the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee and Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Act (P.L. 106-51), the Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 106-53), and the Global Exploration and Development Corporation Act (P.L. 106-54). These actions have changed the current level of budget authority and outlays. I ask unanimous consent that the report and transmittal letter dated September 28, 1999, be printed in the Record.