Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a tax reduction bill. Everybody has ideas around here. I thought I would work with some people who think like I think and put together what I choose to call the Share the Surplus Tax Reduction and Simplification Act. It uses up the $780 billion over 10 years. I am introducing it tonight, and tomorrow I will speak on it. I hope some Senators will look at it from the standpoint of a balanced approach to moving toward some simplification and, at the same time, doing some of the things that will be fair, equitable, and good for our economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I already have answered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I tried as best I could to say 48 States have patients' bills of rights. I did not say 42 States have every single item that the Democrats want in the Patients' Bill of Rights, but they do have the authority to put in as much as they want. So if the sovereign States, their Governors and legislatures, think your litany of things ought to be there and they are that important, they have the authority to pass it.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today with Senator Bayh to introduce the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999. Even on its best day the government can never be a replacement for a loving two parent family. As the father of eight I cherish the moments I have spent and will spend with my children because they are my best friends. But sadly, there is a growing trend among American children, they are growing up without the love and guidance of their fathers and in many cases these children are going years without seeing their fathers. This trend has taken a terrible toll on not only our children and families, but our nation as a whole. For instance in my home state of New Mexico over 24 percent of families do not have fathers present in the home. Nationally, the numbers are not any better; nearly 25 million children or 36 percent of all kids live without their biological father and since 1960 the number of children living without their father has jumped from 5 million to 17 million. Additionally, about 40 percent of these children have not seen their father in the last year. I cannot think of two more important issues facing our nation than the dual goal of promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood. I believe you could describe the role parents play in the lives of their children in the following way: providing love, guidance, and discipline; while at the same time teaching about respect, honor, duty and the values that make our nation so great. And while we all acknowledge the positive benefits of a two parent family these are more and more families where fathers simply are not present in the lives of their children. I would submit this is a tragedy because a child growing up without a father or a mother simply misses out on something very special. I recently came across a quotation that I think is appropriate: ``it is a wise father that knows his own child.'' However, the exact opposite is now occurring with a growing trend towards absentee fathers. The bill we are introducing today seeks to reverse this trend by providing states and communities with support for the dual goal of promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood. Specifically, the bill: authorizes a public awareness campaign to promote responsible fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of married two parent families. Additionally, our bill creates a responsible parenting block program to provide support for state and local governments, nonprofit, charitable and religious organizations' efforts to promote responsible fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of married two parent families at the state and local level. The final component of the bill changes existing Federal law to encourage a stronger connection between fathers and children through increased child support to families and more available training through the Welfare- to-Work program for low-income non-custodial fathers. There is one provision within this component I would like to specifically focus on and that is the State option to disregard child support collected for purposes of determining eligibility for, or amount of, TANF assistance. While it is the intent of this section to allow States to disregard certain child support collected that amount is also limited only to cases where states have chosen to pass-through up to $75 of child support payments per month directly to the family and then only that $75 may be disregarded by states. In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important issue and Senator Bayh, I very much look forward to working with you on this exciting piece of legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today with Senator Bayh to introduce the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999. Even on its best day the government can never be a replacement for a loving two parent family. As the father of eight I cherish the moments I have spent and will spend with my children because they are my best friends. But sadly, there is a growing trend among American children, they are growing up without the love and guidance of their fathers and in many cases these children are going years without seeing their fathers. This trend has taken a terrible toll on not only our children and families, but our nation as a whole. For instance in my home state of New Mexico over 24 percent of families do not have fathers present in the home. Nationally, the numbers are not any better; nearly 25 million children or 36 percent of all kids live without their biological father and since 1960 the number of children living without their father has jumped from 5 million to 17 million. Additionally, about 40 percent of these children have not seen their father in the last year. I cannot think of two more important issues facing our nation than the dual goal of promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood. I believe you could describe the role parents play in the lives of their children in the following way: providing love, guidance, and discipline; while at the same time teaching about respect, honor, duty and the values that make our nation so great. And while we all acknowledge the positive benefits of a two parent family these are more and more families where fathers simply are not present in the lives of their children. I would submit this is a tragedy because a child growing up without a father or a mother simply misses out on something very special. I recently came across a quotation that I think is appropriate: ``it is a wise father that knows his own child.'' However, the exact opposite is now occurring with a growing trend towards absentee fathers. The bill we are introducing today seeks to reverse this trend by providing states and communities with support for the dual goal of promoting marriage and responsible fatherhood. Specifically, the bill: authorizes a public awareness campaign to promote responsible fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of married two parent families. Additionally, our bill creates a responsible parenting block program to provide support for state and local governments, nonprofit, charitable and religious organizations' efforts to promote responsible fatherhood and the formation and maintenance of married two parent families at the state and local level. The final component of the bill changes existing Federal law to encourage a stronger connection between fathers and children through increased child support to families and more available training through the Welfare- to-Work program for low-income non-custodial fathers. There is one provision within this component I would like to specifically focus on and that is the State option to disregard child support collected for purposes of determining eligibility for, or amount of, TANF assistance. While it is the intent of this section to allow States to disregard certain child support collected that amount is also limited only to cases where states have chosen to pass-through up to $75 of child support payments per month directly to the family and then only that $75 may be disregarded by states. In closing, I want to encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important issue and Senator Bayh, I very much look forward to working with you on this exciting piece of legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman. hartsfield atlanta international airport

Mr. DOMENICI. As the Chairman knows, I believe that the AS350 AStar helicopter is a proven force-multiplier for Customs that has been used along the Southwest border, and elsewhere in the country, to support operations by the Border Patrol, and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. According to information provided by the Customs Service, in the past year these Customs helicopters assisted in the seizure of approximately $14 million 7,800 pounds of cocaine, almost 25 tons of marijuana, 88 vehicles, 1 aircraft, 12 illegal weapons, 5 vessels, and 210 arrests. In addition, the Executive Director of the Customs Air Interdiction Division, has indicated that AStar is the most cost-effective element of the Customs air fleet. Based on this track record, the AS350 AStar has become the light enforcement helicopter of choice for the U.S. Customs Service. Mr. President, I understand the budget constraints facing the Subcommittee. I would simply ask that as we proceed with this bill in conference or later in the year, the Chairman and the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Dorgan, consider making investments in proven, cost-effective force multipliers--like the AStar helicopters--that can help strengthen law enforcement and improve our efforts to combat the inflow of drugs into this country a funding priority.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Colorado, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, in a colloquy. Mr. President, I want to begin by applauding the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Treasury-General Government Appropriations Subcommittee for what they have done under difficult budgetary circumstances. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for Customs included a controversial $312.4 million user fee to fund 5,000 existing Customs personnel. That budget gimmick essentially forced the Committee to either reduce Customs staffing levels or reduce or deny many needed projects and new initiatives. Under those difficult circumstances. I believe that Committee made the right choice. The Customs Service has added to the problem by failing to include comprehensive air interdiction and marine enforcement fleet modernization plans requested by Congress in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget request. Has the subcommittee received either of these plans?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1282, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill for FY 2000, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for bringing the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and consistent with the discretionary spending caps for FY 2000. The pending bill provides $27.6 billion in budget authority and $24.7 billion in new outlays for FY 2000 to fund the programs of the Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Executive Office of the President; the Postal Service; and related independent agencies. With outlays from prior-years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $27.8 billion in budget authority and $28.2 billion in outlays. For discretionary spending, which represents just under half the funding in the bill, the Senate bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority, and it is $109 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The Senate bill is $0.5 billion in both BA and outlays below the President's budget request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss recent developments regarding the Rio Grande River in New Mexico, an endangered species called the silvery minnow, and praiseworthy action by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this week. As I have previously outlined before to my colleagues, a complicated and potentially chaotic situation involving literally hundreds of thousands of water users along the Rio Grande in my state could emerge this year. Yesterday, the Fish and Wildlife Service designated almost 170 miles of the Rio Grande channel as critical habitat for the silvery minnow. This designation, as Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt testified earlier this year, is prematurely driven by a court order before the needs of the minnow and economic impacts are known. Indeed, this is a ``cart before the horse'' situation that would be comical if its consequences weren't potentially so tragic. In light of this situation, the action by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Tuesday is heartening in two respects. First, I want to profoundly thank Senator Chafee, chairman of the committee; Senator Baucus, ranking member; and Senator Crapo, chairman of the relevant subcommittee, and their staffs, for their help on S. ll00, a precisely crafted bill that would bring a logical and commonsense reform to the present Endangered Species Act. Second, I also thank the various environmental organizations and their staffs that helped us in this effort. This was a unique, bi-partisan undertaking. I think the committee's work shows that intelligent reform can occur in this highly charged arena. I will do all I can to assist in ``clean'' passage of this legislation, without the burden of multiple amendments that will fracture the consensus that has developed. S. ll00 simply requires that the designation of critical habitat for an endangered species occur, in the future, after the scientific work necessary to develop a comprehensive recovery plan for that species is completed. That sounds logical to my colleagues, I suspect, but the present Endangered Species Act provides for just the opposite: that is, it requires a designation of habitat before science has told us what a species needs to survive. I have been asked what relationship exists between S. 1100 and the Rio Grande/silvery minnow situation. The answer will clearly depend on how the courts resolve this particular case. However, S. 1100 provides that designation of critical habitat should occur concurrently with the development of a recovery plan. That is a significant step forward, but only a first step. It will prevent the situation now found on the Rio Grande in the future. A court has forced the Fish and Wildlife Service to prematurely designate critical habitat, a premature designation that everyone agrees could be counter-productive. Mr. President, you know that a full Environmental Impact Statement is required by law in the case of a ``major federal action.'' If any case cries out for a full EIS, it is the case of the silvery minnow. The potential impact of this federal action by the Fish and Wildlife Service, compelled by the court, could have consequences well beyond the normal definition of the word ``major.'' At stake is the water, literally the water used every second of every day by all users of the Rio Grande system. Unfortunately, even with legal precedent on the need for an EIS in habitat designations, the Fish and Wildlife Service chose not to do one. Some try to portray this particular case as one dividing farmers and ranchers from the more extreme environmentalists in our state, a situation described quite accurately and colorfully by Secretary Babbitt earlier this year as ``intransigence.'' Yet, this issue is much broader than that kind of confrontation: hundreds of thousands of users, people who depend upon the Rio Grande for their water in their taps at home, residents of Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and the communities in between, could find their water endangered. In light of this potential, I believe that a full-scale Environmental Impact Statement must be done on the silvery minnow issue. It is only after we know the impact that critical habitat designation may have on all users, and its relationship to saving the species, that we can intelligently move forward.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(5) 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 an amount provided for an earned income tax credit compliance initiative. 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.................... 533,971 543,967 Violent crime reduction fund..................... 4,500 5,554 Highways......................................... ......... 24,574 Mass transit..................................... ......... 4,117 Mandatory........................................ 321,502 304,297

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1283, the District of Columbia Appropriations bill for FY 2000 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill provides $410 million in new budget authority and $401 million in new outlays for federal contributions to the District of Columbia government. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the Senate bill totals $410 million in budget authority and $405 million in outlays for FY 2000. I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, for her hard work and diligence in fashioning this bill. The bill is exactly at the Senate Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The bill is $17 million in budget authority and $12 million in outlays above the President's request due to the inclusion of a tuition assistance program for D.C. students who attend out-of-state colleges. The Administration has requested these funds, however, through the Department of Education rather than directly to the District of Columbia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the District of Columbia Appropriations bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal yesterday wrote: What is not in dispute is how hard a hit small domestic oil took during the recent downturn in oil prices. While larger oil companies with their huge asset bases and integrated businesses were able to weather the storm, many of the smaller producers, which operate on low margins and minuscule volumes, lurched toward ruin. These small producers, who mop up the tailings of the country's once-great oil fields primarily in the West and the Mid-west collectively produce about 1.4 million barrels of oil daily, an amount roughly equivalent to that imported to Saudi Arabia. And the total number of such subsistence wells, defined by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission as ones producing 10 barrels of crude a day or less were abandoned at an accelerated rate during the downturn, experts say. The Wall Street Journal is not the only entity noticing the plight of the domestic independent oil and gas industry. DOE recently wrote: ``Domestic crude oil producers have seen the price of their product (adjusted for inflation) fall to levels not seen since the 1930's.'' Independent oil and gas producers have wells in 32 States. Senators from these producing States have heard from the producers, oil and gas service small businesses, Governors, mayors and county commissioners. The situation was so bad in Oklahoma that the Governor held a special session of the legislature. In New Mexico, we have oil and gas producers organizing marches and rallies calling attention to their crisis. When the oil and gas industry suffers a cash flow problem and credit crunch, so do Federal, State and local governments. The recent oil and gas crisis has cost States and localities $2.1 billion in lost royalties alone. One community had to chose between keeping the hospital or the school open. Oil tax revenues were, not sufficient to keep both operating. The number of oil and gas rigs operating in the United States is at the lowest count since 1944, when records of this tally began. The industry is predicting that the U.S. will loss an additional million barrels a day of domestic production as a result of the last price collapse. This production shrinkage will be felt in the marketplace in 12 to 18 months. Beginning in November 1997, the oil and gas exploration and development industry began experiencing the lowest inflation-adjusted oil prices in history. Recent Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) statistics speak for themselves: 55,000 jobs lost out of an estimated 338,600 total industry jobs. Additional 68,000 oil and natural gas jobs (20 percent) are at risk of being lost. 136,000 oil wells (25 percent of total U.S.) and 57,000 natural gas wells shut down. Every barrel of domestic that we lose will have to be replaced with barrel of foreign produced oil and our dependence on foreign oil is already too high--in excess of 57 percent and trending higher. The industry we are trying to help includes royalty owners in all 50 States. Many of these royalty owners are retired and depend on their oil royalty checks to pay for their daily expenses. When the price of oil dipped to $10 a barrel several months ago, these royalty owners saw their royalty checks drop by half. At $18 to $19 a barrel our independent producers barely break even. At $14 a barrel they lose $10.30 a day per well or $3,752 a year per well. The oil and gas industry is a very capital intensive industry on the front end--exploring and drilling wells and also on the back end-- shutting in wells or going out of business. The drilling costs for a well range from $600,000 to $15 million for an off-shore deep water well. Getting out of the business is capital intensive industry, too. On average it costs $5,000 to $10,000 a well to decommission a well. It is an industry dependent on banks and credit. The independents get about 40 percent of their capital from financial institutions. The price of oil has just recently improved, but the bankers have been reluctant to restructure loans or to make new loans. Capital budgets to develop new production and replace depleting existing production have been cut dramatically. Most independents are not drilling new wells. The industry has a viable future but they have to get through this current credit crunch, and they need loan restructuring to keep them going until they can recover from the big price drop of 1997 through mid-1999. This is why I joined with Senator Byrd to propose an emergency loan program for oil, gas and steel--two important core industries. I am hopeful that the House will quickly name conferees and move the bill through the legislative process. Domestic oil and gas production is America's true national strategic petroleum reserve and we need to make sure there is an industry in the U.S. capable of meeting our strategic oil and gas needs. I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared in the June 30, 1999, Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is not an issue of what kind of economic game plan we have had for the last 5 or 6 years. We all understand that hard-working Americans are making this economy hum. Investors who have become more enlightened and entrepreneurs who are taking more risks have caused a great American recovery, sustained in a manner we have never expected. The issue is, when we collect more taxes, and we exceed expectations--in fact, not just by a few hundred million, but actually approaching $1 trillion--should we wait for the Government to spend it or should we give some of it back to the American taxpayer? Actually, the Social Security trust fund can be saved. Medicare with prescription drugs can be reformed and fixed so we have prescription drugs, and there is still a large amount of money left over. What should we do with it? Invent some way to set it aside? If we do that, it will be spent. Let's give some of it back to the American people. That is why the lockbox is important. It says what is left over does not belong to Social Security; it belongs to the American people. Use it prudently, Congress, and give back some of it. It appears there is a war with that side of the aisle against giving anything back to the American people from these kinds of surpluses. I believe we will win that war. We relish it. We are ready to go. That will be the issue the next couple of months. I yield the floor. cloture motion

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do the Republicans have left?

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. May I finish my consent request? I would like to make sure it makes some sense. I ask unanimous consent that we dispense with that vote and that we proceed to substitute for that a motion as if cloture was before us on the actual lockbox amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, please tell me when I have used 4 minutes. I say to the President of the United States: Thank you very much, Mr. President. You have agreed with us on one of the most important issues confronting the senior citizens of this Nation. In your budget and your recommendations in the past, during this fiscal year, you suggested that only 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund be saved and put in a trust fund and stay there for senior citizens for their Social Security. We suggested in our budget resolution that anything short of 100 percent was not right. After weeks of debate in this body, without an opportunity to get a vote on an amendment that would have said that and would have locked it tightly in place, the President of the United States announced that there are more resources available because the surpluses are bigger and decided that he agreed with the Republicans that 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund should be set aside for Social Security purposes. Now the time has come for the Senate to do that. This is not an issue of Medicare. This is an issue of the Social Security trust fund being available for no purpose other than Social Security. In the meantime, it is used to reduce the national debt. That is the program, that is the plan, that is the safest and fairest thing for seniors across this land. Pretty soon, we are going to find out whether that is really the issue or whether there is another issue, and that other issue is, even if you have done that and set it aside and locked it away, should there be a tax cut? It would appear that for some reason, the President of the United States and maybe a majority of the Democrats in the Senate don't want to let the American people have a refund of the taxes they have overpaid. And now we learn from both auditing or accounting entities, the President's and ours, that that surplus is even bigger than we thought. That is aside from the Social Security trust fund--in addition to it, without touching it. The issue, then, is what kind of gimmick are we going to use to eat up that surplus so there is no money available to give back to the American people? That is the issue. The issue will be couched as if we should put $350 billion of this non-Social Security surplus in a Medicare trust fund. But the President's own proposals belie the necessity for that and just give it a birth--you open it up and you can see it for what it is, an effort to deny the American people a tax cut because, lo and behold, the President said we can reform Medicare. We can actually put in place prescription drugs. And what is the price tag? Let's just agree that the President has a good number-- how about that, I say to Senator Abraham--$46 billion, not $396 billion; $46 billion is what he says we need during the next decade to provide prescription drugs, which he deems to be good for the senior citizens of America. He is crossing this land and saying: I am for prescription drugs. We are for prescription drugs. In fact, we are so pleased that the President has acknowledged exactly that situation that we are almost prepared to say--as soon as we run some numbers --that we can do better than you have done in terms of prescription drugs for senior citizens who need prescription drug assistance. But let's remember, he says we need $46 billion. We are going to hear some arguments about the lockbox, saying let's have another lockbox for Medicare and let's take a bunch of the money that the taxpayers ought to get and put it over there in a trust fund under the rubric that it will help get rid of the deficit, that it will bring down the deficit of the United States, the overall debt--even though the three major accounting entities that have testified said it will be the same thing whether you put it in there or not. It has no impact because at some point you have to pay off those IOUs, and that means a tax increase. Now, this is rather complicated, but the truth of the matter is-- listen up, seniors--we are going to provide a prescription drug benefit as good as the President's or better. Let's focus on that. That is what we are going to do. Indeed, we are going to put every nickel--I remind everybody it takes $120 billion more for the trust fund to get all it is entitled to, according to CBO. We are going to put more than $1.8 trillion in. We are going to put $1.9 trillion in that trust fund. In summary, we are making some headway. It is slow and tedious. I assume that today all Members on the other side of the aisle are going to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. I believe that is the case. It will be 100 to nothing, as if they have agreed to a lockbox. Actually, that is a wasted vote, if there are going to be 100. They are just deciding they all want to go home and say: We are for the lockbox also. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays on the lockbox motion to proceed----

Mr. DOMENICI. May I finish? I wasn't finished.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor. If the Senator has a little time later, I would be glad to use another minute. Thank you.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 1234, the foreign operations and export financing appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The Senate bill provides $12.7 billion in budget authority and $4.7 billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of State, Export and Military Assistance, Bilateral and Multilateral Economic Assistance, and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2000. When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the bill totals $12.7 billion in budget authority and $13.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2000. The subcommittee is below its Section 302(B) allocation for budget authority and outlays. I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would provide Habitat for Humanity $1.5 million for construction of a multi-unit development for Tibetan refugees living in Northern India. These refugees were forcibly driven from their homes by the Chinese communists. They are living in the Dehradun area and are among the poorest people on earth. They are without citizenship rights and cannot own land. As such, they exist as squatters in burned out homes and shacks remaining after the Hindu-Moslem conflicts of a few years ago. The conditions are deplorable; soaking wet in the monsoon season and freezing in the winter. Many Americans are aware of the plight of these Tibetan refugees and have started taking actions to help them. The Dalai Lama is a full partner in this project and has put the full weight of his friends and government behind this. This money will fund a plan to purchase 14 acres of land on behalf of the Tibetans and provide for the construction of a multi-unit development for 160 of the poorest families. An American architect has volunteered his time to visit the site, direct the preliminary clearing, and draw the plans for the village. General Mick Kicklighter, U.S. Army, Ret., serves as President of Habitat for Humanity International and will oversee the direction of resources for this project. The President of the Arundel County, Maryland, Habitat for Humanity affiliate is working to lay out detailed building time and cost management for the village. The property has been obtained, building permits secured and the land has been cleared by the hand effort of the refugees. I ask my colleagues to join me and the cosponsors to this amendment to support funding in the amount of $1.5 million to directed to Habitat for Humanity International for completion of this project. The creation of this village with U.S. assistance will serve as a model for the international aid community. I firmly believe that the impact of this modest sum will be felt globally. amendment no. 1176 On page 33, line 6, before the colon, insert the following: ``, of which no less than $1,000,000 shall be available for the Defense Institute of International Studies to enhance its mission, functioning and performance by providing for its fixed costs of operation''.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to speak a little about the President of the United States, his staff and his renewed focus on the domestic and economic issues of this country. Across the land, it has been heralded that the President is once again coming back to address economic issues and wants to become a part of the economic agenda. He wants to be involved with what we are doing here in Congress in our work on approving money for programs, talking about Medicare, Social Security, and other things. I will say at the outset that it wasn't too many months ago that the President of the United States was promoting a plan that was considerably different from what he is espousing today. It wasn't long ago that you felt satisfied with saving only a portion of the Social Security surplus and using the rest for your spending initiatives. Yet, as of today, the President's plan has come the Republican way. We both say now that we should save 100 percent of the money that belongs to the Social Security recipients of our country and we should not let it be squandered on anything else. This means that we are going to save the $1.8 trillion dollar Social Security surplus over the next decade. In the Congressional plan, the only way that we can touch these funds is if they are needed to undertake substantive reforms of Social Security to ensure that the program works well for seniors. Nothing else. In order to guarantee such restraint, we have developed a lockbox proposal--I came up with the basic idea and Senator Abraham has taken a lead in promoting it. While the President's lockbox is different from ours, at least we are speaking the same language--even the President is saying that we must make sure not to spend any of the Social Security surplus. That puts us on the same path. He is following us. We thank him for that and are pleased to have him on board. However, now is the chance for him to show his commitment to this principle. Up until now, we have faced opposition on our lockbox bill, both in our budget resolution and on the Senate floor. I would remind you that we have not been able to vote on this proposal here yet because the Democratic minority doesn't want to let us vote on our lockbox. We are going to ask them another time, very soon, to give us an opportunity to vote on it. This lockbox has the name, Abraham- Domenici. It is a real lockbox. We are also joined by the distinguished junior Senator from Missouri as our third cosponsor, Mr. Ashcroft. We wish others would join. We wish Senators from the other side would join. Let us make sure that when we say to the seniors that we are putting their Social Security funds in a lockbox, that it is real and is the most real one we can do. As a matter of fact, our bill is so tough that the administration has opposed it on the basis that it might put our Government in a straitjacket. They fear that it might cause some harm to our Government and to our country because we tied the knot on our lockbox so tightly. We do not agree. We think we need a tough lockbox to guarantee safety. However, the Administration should take comfort in the fact that the Office of Management and Budget--the President's experts on budgetary matters--has just revised up their surplus projections over the next decade in light of recent economic strength. As our economy grows and new jobs are added, people pay more in taxes. This means that once again, there is more revenue expected in the year 2000 than we contemplated 3 months ago. This means that we will now have an on- budget surplus in fiscal year 2000 above and beyond the Social Security surplus--both the President's budget shop and the Congressional Budget Office expect forecast this. This is true, even accounting for the $7 billion we spent recently in FY2000 on Kosovo. This money came out of on-budget funds--we have not touched the funds that are accumulated by Social Security. The President believes that we have a $5 billion on-budget surplus remaining next year. I can't tell you what the Congressional Budget Office is going to say with certainty, but I can tell you it is more than that. I can tell you it is between $10 and $15 billion. That means we can lock up Social Security's money in the Trust Fund and still have a $10 or $15 billion buffer to absorb any unanticipated expenses. This should allay the Administration's concerns about our lockbox. Having said that, let me talk for a moment about a profound change which has occurred in our country in recent years. Something very dynamic is happening to the US economy. Some say we're having a new industrial revolution of sorts in the high tech arena that is fundamentally changing the way we do business. It has fueled tremendous growth in all sectors. Now, no one knows for certain why this recovery is so long-lived. However, even though I am usually pretty cautious as budget chairman of the Senate, it does appear that this growth will propel us toward higher and higher surpluses going forward. It is realistic to assume that American taxpayers will be paying far more in taxes than we need to run the Government for many years to come. That means, year over year, your Government spends less than it takes in. It is great to run persistent surpluses. However, we will surely lose the faith of the American people if we end up spending those surpluses. We must save Social Security's money now and in the future. However, we should think carefully about what we do with the extra surplus--the surplus above Social Security's funds. The President is thinking about this and has formulated 15 year budget plans. I should say as an aside, we will not use 15 year budget numbers--we will not go beyond ten years, regardless of what the President does. Ten-year estimates are long enough--we will have almost a trillion-dollar surplus beyond Social Security during the coming decade. Now, I have not seen the entire new plan of the President, but I can tell you that is has some odd features. In the first five years, no one in America will get any tax relief. The Government of America will retain control of all the enormous projected surpluses. Tax relief is relegated to the second five years in the President's plan. That is not fair to the American working man or woman. Now certainly, we will need to retain some of the projected surpluses to put toward Medicare reform. The President envisions one type of reform where he spends $51 billion of surplus dollars on a Medicare prescription drug benefit. We don't know if that is right or not. But we can sit at the table and fix Medicare given our wonderful fiscal situation. But let's not kid ourselves. We don't need a trillion dollars. We should be giving some of this money back to the American people--they are the ones who generated all these extra tax payments, they ought to get some of them back. In that regard, it appears we are on a collision course with the President. We will let the American people be the judge of who is correct. I don't think that these hardworking men and women will stand by as their taxes climb higher and higher--I think they will support our call for tax relief. It is unfair to assume that the Government, having collected more than we need, ought to start saying: Well, let's find out how we can spend all of it in Government. How does that make sense? Should we wait for Washington to figure out which new program it needs? Should we do what the President is doing? He wants to put $340 billion of IOUs into the Medicare trust fund, and then say, in 30 years when the IOUs come due, we will just raise income taxes to pay for it. Putting that money into the trust fund for Medicare does not enhance one payment, does not increase its solvency for one week. And here we sit failing to say exactly what it is. The President's proposal will lead to income tax increases down the road to cover these IOUs. I should say a number of Democrats and almost every Republican have been critical of this presidential proposal. It is similar to writing a postdated check. Guess who is signing the check? The American people, because they back up the U.S. Government who signed that check. It is postdated 30 years. When it comes due, there isn't any money to pay it. So then you go out and tax the American people to pay it. But, in the meantime, you can for some reason run around and say there is a lot of money in the trust fund, ignoring the long-run consequences of this plan. Frankly, I don't believe this is the right way to do things. I look forward to a good, healthy debate. Normally, I would wonder whether the President is going to once again politicize the issue of Medicare so much so that it will turn out that we will not do anything, and we will all be frightened to death. But I actually believe that the President and Congress can work together. However, we do not endorse the President's reliance on trust fund accounting. Instead of forcing all the surpluses into some trust fund or another, why don't we give them back to the people who paid us? Maybe they could set up their own trust funds. Maybe they could start their own savings plan. Maybe they could put a little more into the kind of things they think they need for their families. In a sense, I don't know about the rest of the Senators on both sides of the aisle, but I look forward to these issues we are going to discuss between Members of the Congress and the President. On some of them, I look for us to walk right down this aisle in bipartisan fashion and get some things done. However, we will not walk into an end agreement where no relief is given to American taxpayers. We will not be able to agree with the President of the United States if he is leading all the Democrats--which I somehow doubt--saying, no matter how big the surplus is, let's just wait around and see if Government doesn't need it. I submit that, if you do that, Government will need it. Government will use it. And the taxpayers who collectively paid more into Government than we need will see bigger Government, more money spent and less money in their own pockets, which is where more of it ought to be. I think my time has expired. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I have been a Senator for a long time. I have participated in a number of events that made me feel very good about my work and about my community and the citizens of my State. But I do not believe there has been anything as satisfying as to work with the communities in New Mexico and school boards and superintendents and teachers on the six pillars of character in Character Counts. It has been absolutely something that I just will never forget. I am quite confident that while it is not the only answer, the elixir, to all of our problems, it is certainly a very positive thing going on in the lives of our young people. We ought to be proud of these efforts and certainly encourage Character Counts, where we can. I would say to the Senate, if any of you get involved in Character Counts, it is very difficult for the schools to have success at the high school level, but a lot of work is being done there. It is among the grade school children where this program starts. As they move through those years, when they have been exposed to character education for 4 or 5 years, there is a real difference in how they perceive their relationship to their teachers, to their parents, and to their community. Mr. President, I understand that I have a number of minutes remaining under my control on the Republican side of this.