Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and honor that I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery in New Mexico. The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces have made immeasurable sacrifices for the principles of freedom and liberty that make this Nation unique throughout civilization. The service of veterans has been vital to the history of the Nation, and the sacrifices made by veterans and their families should not be forgotten. These veterans at the very least deserve every opportunity to be buried at a National Cemetery of their choosing. However, unless Congressional action is taken the Santa Fe National Cemetery will run out of space to provide casketed burials for our veterans at the conclusion of 2000. I believe all New Mexicans can be proud of the Santa Fe National Cemetery that has grown from 39/100 of an acre to its current 77 acres. The cemetery first opened in 1868 and within several years was designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Men and women who have fought in all of nation's wars hold an honored spot within the hallowed ground of the cemetery. Today the Santa Fe National Cemetery contains almost 27,000 graves that are mostly marked by upright headstones. However, as I have already stated, unless Congress acts the Santa Fe National Cemetery will be forced to close. The Bill I am introducing today allows the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for the use of flat grave markers that will extend the useful life of the cemetery until 2008. While I wish the practice of utilizing headstones could continue indefinitely if a veteran chose, my wishes are outweighed by my desire to extend the useful life of the cemetery. I would note that my desire is shared by the New Mexico Chapter of the American Legion, the Albuquerque Chapter of the Retired Officers' Association, and the New Mexico Chapter of the VFW who have all endorsed the use of flat grave markers. Finally, this is not without precedent because exceptions to the law have been granted on six prior occasions with the most recent action occurring in 1994 when Congress authorized the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for flat grave markers at the Willamette National Cemetery in Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Bill and four letters of support for the use of flat grave markers be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation, cosponsored by Senator Kyl, that would allow the Forest Service to convey parcels of land to States and local governments, on the condition that it be used for a specific recreational or local public purpose. The National Forest System Community Purposes Act is patterned after an existing law that set in place one of the most successful local community assistance programs under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That law, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, was enacted in 1926. Under its authority, the BLM has been able to work cooperatively with States and communities to provide land needed for recreational areas and other public projects to benefit local communities in areas where Federal land dominates the landscape. With skyrocketing demands on the Forest Service and local communities to provide accommodations and other services for an ever-increasing number of Americans who take advantage of all the opportunities available in the national forests, I believe the time has come to provide this ability to the Forest Service. In the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act, there were no fewer than 31 boundary adjustments, land conveyances, and exchanges authorized, many of which dealt with national forests. Had this legislation been enacted at that time, I cannot say for sure how many of these provisions would have been unnecessary, but I expect the number would have been reduced by at least one-third. During the 105th Congress, I sponsored three bills that directed the Secretary of Agriculture to convey small tracts Forest Service land to communities in New Mexico. All three bills were subsequently passed in the Senate unanimously, but two of these bills were not enacted last year, and the Senate has once again seen fit to pass them in the 106th Congress. We now await action in the House. I know that other Senators are faced with a similar situation of having to shepherd bills through the legislative process simply to give the Forest Service the authority to cooperate with local communities on projects to meet local needs. Over one-third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the federal government, and therefore finding appropriate sites for community and educational purposes can be difficult. Communities adjacent to and surrounded by National Forest System land have limited opportunities to acquire land for certain recreational and other local public purposes. In many cases, these recreational and other local needs are not within the mission of the Forest Service, but would not be inconsistent with forest plans developed for the adjacent national forest. To compound the problem, small communities are often unable to acquire land due to its extremely high market value resulting from the predominance of Federal land in the local area. The subject of one of the bills I just alluded to provides an excellent example of the problem. That bill provided for a one-acre conveyance to the Village of Jemez Springs, New Mexico. The land is to be used for a desperately needed fire substation, which will obviously benefit public safety for the local community. Since over 70 percent of the emergency calls in this particular community are for assistance on the Santa Fe National Forest, however, the Forest Service would also benefit greatly from this new station. In fairness, the Forest Service was very willing to sell this land to the village, but they were constrained by current law to charge the appraised fair market value. Herein lies the biggest problem for small communities like Jemez Springs. In this case, the appraised value of an acre of land along the highway, obviously necessary for this kind of a facility, was estimated to be around $50,000. Combined with the cost of building the station itself, this additional cost put the project out of reach of the community's 400 residents. Through this example, it is clear to see that both the national forests and adjacent communities could mutually benefit from a process similar to that under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This program has worked so well for the BLM over the years, I see no reason for the Forest Service not to have the same kind of authority. The National Forest System Community Purposes Act would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey or lease parcels of Forest Service land to States, counties, or other incorporated communities at a cost that could be less than fair market value. In order to obtain the land, the State or community would develop a plan of use that would be subject to Forest Service approval. In closing, Mr. President, I think the time has come for this legislation. In fact, during a recent discussion I had with Forest Service Chief Dombeck, he was somewhat surprised to learn that the agency did not already have this authority. I would urge the Senate to provide this needed assistance to local communities around the country.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss three interrelated aspects of our country's security at the brink of the new millenium. There has already been discussion of NATO in this new world. We have also intermittently discussed the war in the region of Kosovo. It is important to reflect on NATO's mission under changed circumstances. It is critical to address the U.S. role as part of NATO. At the same time, we must evaluate threats globally, and we must be vigilant in safeguarding our security and defense capabilities. In April, we celebrated NATO's 50th Anniversary. Despite the circumstances, we had good reason to celebrate. After the horrors of World War I and II, U.S. decisionmakers sought to construct European structures for integration, peace, and security. U.S. policy focused on two tracks: the Marshall Plan for economic reconstruction and NATO for transatlantic security cooperation. The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 acknowledged what we failed to admit after World War I. Europe was and is a precarious continent. Twice in the first 50 years of this century, America fought against tyrannical and malevolent forces in Europe. It is important to remember that NATO did not begin as a response to the Warsaw Pact. This primary objective evolved as a de facto result of Stalinist expansion into Central Europe. Fifty years later NATO remains the strategic link between the Old World and the New. NATO achieved its Cold War mission and even now, in a changed era and very different world, NATO is a vital element of transatlantic cooperation and security. We must, however, be conscious and careful in applying the lessons of the past to current circumstances. None of what I have just talked about should be interpreted as an argument for current NATO action in the region of Yugoslavia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. The administration repeatedly suggests that violence in the Balkans ignited the First World War. This is true. A member of the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist group, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Serbia, at that time, was a small nation fighting for independence within a crumbling Austian-Hungarian Empire. Due to Russia's alliance with Serbia and Germany's open-ended military pact with Austria, both Germany and Russia mobilized immediately. Other than a few neutral countries--Norway, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, and Spain--the rest were locked in polarized blocs that set the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente. Such polarized blocs do not exist today. Serbai's aggression against Kosovar Albanians can and has created regional instabilities. But this would not lead to World War Three. This is not 1914. Only one alliance dominates Europe--NATO. NATO can be used as a force for peace. Acting without regard to security perceptions outside of NATO, however, can lead us down a very different and dangerous path. Our current actions disregarded the views others of their own security. Our actions in Kosovo may yet unravel any gains achieved in nuclear arms reductions and cooperative security alliances since the Soviet Union collapsed. Furthermore, NATO's response in Kosovo has accelerated and exacerbated regional instability. We have managed to create a humanitarian crisis, while not achieving any of our military objectives. Of course, any rational person could see that an air campaign from 20,000 feet would not prevent executions, rapes, and purges on the ground. This is especially true given the 5 months of time we gave President Milosevic to plan, prepare, and position his forces. One relevant aspect of today's world that the administration failed to mention in their arguments for involvement in this campaign is the impact this would have on U.S.-Russian relations. We have a tendency to believe that Russia is so weak and needs our money so bad that we can disregard their views or interests. I ask you to consider two key facts: as Russia's conventional military declines, reliance on their nuclear arsenal increases; global stability cannot be achieved without cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. The reciprocal unilateral withdrawal of thousands of tactical nuclear warheads between the U.S. and Russia may also be reversed. Russia has recently announced its intent to redeploy components of its tactical nuclear arsenal. We were on a path through arms reduction and steps toward increased transparency to addressing tactical weapons. These gains are steadily unraveling. The administration never suggested that NATO strikes against Serbs may lead to a worst-case scenario over the next few years in Russian politics. Russia faces Parliamentary elections this year and a Presidential election next. According to one of the most pro-American Duma members, the U.S. Administration picked the best route to influence the upcoming elections in favor of Communist and ultra-nationalist parties. In Russia, 90 percent of the public support the Serbs and are against NATO. This war will have profoundly negative impact on the relationship between Russia and the U.S. for a long time. The U.S. was supposedly not fighting for either side. We were trying to be the honest broker, at least in the beginning. Our actions have created enemies. These enemies have historical ties to Russia. Russia's economy is in tatters, but Russia still controls the only means to obliterate the United States. We feel we are in the right, because we are fighting a tyrant, one capable of great evil. I don't disagree with the objectives sought, but I do believe that the Administration should have taken into account the possible political consequences of our actions on Russia's political future, as well as our future relationship with Russia. There are those who suggest that NATO must be victorious in the Kosovo conflict. Victory in Kosovo is short-term if we do not sort out the broader consequences of a victory dictated on NATO's terms. Russia is edging closer to China, and India. Our blatant disregard of the security needs of others and perceptions may culminate in a Eurasian bloc allied against us--against NATO. And election campaigns in Russia will begin very soon. As European leaders converged to celebrate NATO's 50th birthday, they spent much time debating and deliberating on NATO's future. NATO's present reflects poor policy decisions and an ineffective military approach. I also take this opportunity to discuss the grievous situation of our military today. Recent actions in Kosovo underscore the self-inflicted damage we have done to our national security in the years since the Cold War. I was one of many Senators during the 1980's who supported seeing our Nation's defenses bolstered in order to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. We defeated them--not through hot war--but by demonstrating the unparalleled power of American democracy and free market dominance over a command economy. The collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable, but it would have taken a lot longer without the catalyst of our rapid defense buildup. This charge greatly accelerated the breakdown in the Soviet Union's economy. Their political and economic institutions unraveled in light of America's clear superiority. In 1991, after years of focus on a strong defense, when the Iraqis occupied Kuwait, U.S. forces were able to demonstrate their dominance. The U.S. military liberated Kuwait in a short, decisive campaign. The Gulf war was a ground and air war. It was a full blown offensive. And at no time during the Gulf war did anyone even so much as hint that U.S. forces were spread too thin. There were no reports of not being able to thwart an attack from North Korea due to our commitment in the Gulf. Never did we hear of depleted munitions stores, shortages in spare parts for our equipment, or waning missile supplies. Eight years later, the cracks in our defense capabilities emerged after less than 60 days of an air campaign in the Kosovo region. In less than forty days of what have been limited air strikes, respected officials reported that U.S. defenses are spread too thin. If North Korea or Saddam wanted to capitalize on our distraction in the Balkans, we currently would not have the means to defend our interests. We have been forced to divert resources from other regions in the world to meet NATO's needs in the Balkans. Our transport capabilities are insufficient. We evidently have too few carriers. Our munitions reserves are depleted. And, as ludicrous as it may sound, for years our military personnel have had to scramble to find spare parts. In the early nineties, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was viewed as the only remaining ``superpower.'' Our global economic and military dominance was unquestioned. That time was, in the words of respected scholars and strategists, the Unipolar Moment. There was no doubt that the U.S. could defend its interests in any situation--whether military action or political persuasion were necessary. We have squandered that moment and missed many opportunities to capitalize on our success. In fact, out of complacency and misplaced perceptions of the post-Cold War world, our defense capacity today is insufficient to match the threats to our national interests. Many years of self-indulgence and inattention to our nation's defense cannot be corrected with a one-time boost. This is a complex and long- term problem. But I'm committed to ensuring that our nation's defenses are not further eroded. I'm fed up with the complacency that has created our current situation. We must have a strong defense. We must ensure that the men and women in uniform have the right equipment, the best training, and are afforded a quality of life sufficient to keep them in the military. This cannot be done by sitting on our hands and hoping that the world remains calm. Additions to readiness accounts, ammunition, and missile stocks in the emergency supplemental for Kosovo will help ensure that our fighting forces are not in worse shape than before this engagement. It provides a small, but significant, step forward. The Defense authorization bill before us takes additional steps in the right direction. I commend Senator Warner and his diligent staff on the hard work they have done to balance priorities and provide for our men and women in uniform. Let me briefly outline some major provisions of this bill that I consider important and appropriate to address some of our military's most pressing needs. As an additional boost to problems in readiness, this bill authorizes an additional $1.2 billion in operations and maintenance funding. The bill also includes over $740 million for DoD and Department of Energy programs that provide assistance to Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union. These programs address the most prevalent proliferation threat in our world today. The $3.4 billion increase in military construction and family housing is an essential element of providing our armed forces with the quality of life they deserve. In addition, pay raises and improved retirement plans demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve in our military. I do not believe that increased pay and better retirement address the full spectrum of issues that feed into retention problems. The preliminary findings of a GAO study requested by myself and Senator Stevens indicate that the main problem is not pay, but rather working conditions. Lack of spare parts and deficient manning were the most frequent reasons offered for dissatisfaction with their current situation. These are important findings, because it is something we can address. As more conclusions come to light, we can do a better job in fixing the problems that currently contribute to recruitment and retention. We must pay close attention to these issues. The men and women serving in our military are the sole assurance of a strong, capable U.S. defense capability. A strong defense must be coupled with a consistent set of foreign policy objectives that strive to reduce or contain security threats. At present, we have neither. Mr. President, it seems we must focus on shifting the balance back in our favor. This cannot be done ad hoc. Securing U.S. interests requires sustained commitment and well-planned execution. First, we must provide the domestic means for a strong, capable armed forces. Second, we must be calculated and careful in the application of force as a fix to failed diplomacy. the nuclear cities initiative

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the tragedy at Columbine High School, and in the midst of our debate on Juvenile Justice issues, I am proud to offer tribute to the youth group known as the Young Marines. The Young Marines is the official youth program of the Marine Corps League and the focal point for the Marine Corps Youth drug demand reduction effort. Its mission is to promote the mental, moral, and physical development of young Americans. All of its activities emphasize the importance of honesty, courage, respect, loyalty, dependability, and a sense of devotion to God, community, and family. After World War II, members of the Marine Corps League discussed the possibility of establishing a Marine Corps League Youth program as a civic project for detachments and to create interest in the League. For historical purposes, the birth of the Young Marines was in Waterbury, Connecticut in 1958. The official charter was issued on 17 October 1965 and thereafter the program spread thought the country. In this age where the youth of America has been labeled as troubled or misguided, their detractor's fail to notice that there are groups and organizations which do take the time to participate in the lives of our youth, to guide them in a world that is full of distractions, and of glorified violence. It makes me very proud to be able to identify an organization whose goals are to promote the mental, moral, and physical development of its members, to instill in its members the ideals of honesty, fairness, courage, to stimulate an interest in, and respect for, academic achievement and the history and traditions of the United States of America. The Young Marines work to promote physical fitness through the conduct of physical activities, including participation in athletic events and close order drill. Any maybe what is most important, the Young Marines stress a drug-free lifestyle through a continual drug prevention education program. Much has been said about the troubles of today's youth, and recent events have illustrated what can happen when teens consider themselves outsiders or without purpose or guidance. I think it's time that we give the recognition and respect to the groups and the youth who do participate in these groups, that which they deserve. I believe that the guidance that groups such as the Young Marines provide is more effective than any legislation can possibly be. And maybe we can start producing real role models that teens can relate to, instead of offering them the glorification of violence and drug use which is so prevalent in the movies and on television. I welcome the opportunity to extend my support to the young people of New Mexico who are participants in this vital program. I firmly believe the experience as Young Marines will greatly contribute to their future success.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which addresses longstanding problems encountered by Federal land managers first, in disposing of surplus federal property, and secondly, in acquiring private inholdings within federally designated areas. This legislation builds on existing laws and provides resources dedicated to the consolidation of federal agency land holdings. I first introduced this bill prior to the end of the 105th Congress, as Title II to the Valles Caldera Preservation Act. This portion of that legislation was independent of the proposed acquisition of land in New Mexico, and perhaps more important. Again this year, Congress will commit large sums of federal taxpayer dollars to purchase new property. Before we do, however, it seems prudent to provide a framework for the orderly disposal of unneeded federal property that also commits resources to meet our current obligations to those who hold land surrounded by federal property. Currently, one-third of the land area in New Mexico is owned by the Federal government. On average, across the eleven Western States, the Federal government owns approximately one half of the land. I agree that this public land is an important natural resource that requires our most thoughtful consideration in the way it is managed and used by the public. To best conserve our existing national treasures for future use and enjoyment, we must devise, with the concurrence of other members of Congress and the President, a definite plan and timetable to dispose of surplus land through sale or exchange into private, or State and local government ownership. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act provides for the orderly disposition of unneeded Federal property on a state by state basis. It also addresses the problem of what are known as ``inholdings'' within federally managed areas. These interrelated problems give rise to an interrelated solution proposed in this legislation. There are currently more than 45 million acres of privately owned land trapped within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In many cases, the location of these tracts, referred to as inholdings, makes the exercise of private property rights difficult for the land owner. In addition, management of the public land is made more cumbersome for the Federal managers. There are also cases where inholders have been waiting generations for the federal government to set aside funding and prioritize the acquisition of their property. With rapidly growing public demand for the use of public land, it is increasingly difficult for federal managers to address problems created by inholdings in many areas. This legislation directs the Department of the Interior to identify inholdings existing within Federal land management units that landowners that have indicated a desire to sell to the Federal government. Inholdings will only be considered for acquisition by the Secretary of Interior if, after public notice, landowners indicate their willingness to sell. The Secretary will then establish a priority for their acquisition considering, among other factors, those which have existed as inholdings for the longest time. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the use of the proceeds generated from sale of land no longer needed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to purchase these inholdings from willing sellers. This will enhance the ability of the Federal land management agencies to work cooperatively with private land owners, and with State and local governments, to consolidate the ownership of public and private land in a manner that would allow for better overall resource management. There is an abundance of public domain land that the BLM has determined it no longer needs to fulfil its mission. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has identified an estimated four to six million acres of public domain land for disposal, with public input and consultation with State and local governments as required by law. Let me state this very clearly--the BLM already has authority under an existing law, FLPMA, to exchange or sell land out of Federal ownership. Through its public process for land use planning, when the agency has determined that certain land would be more useful to the public under private or local governmental control, it is already authorized to dispose of this land, either by sale or exchange. This legislation maintains every aspect of existing law. It also provides an orderly process, and sufficient resources, for the BLM to exercise it. The sale or exchange of land which I have often referred to as ``surplus,'' would be beneficial to local communities, adjoining land owners, and BLM land mangers, alike. First, it would allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate resource management. Second, it would contribute to administrative efficiency within federal land management units, by allowing for better allocation of fiscal and human resources within the agency. Finally, in certain locations, the sale of public land which has been identified for disposal is the best way for the public to realize a fair value for this land. The problem is that an orderly process for the efficient disposition of lands identified for disposal does not currently exist. This legislation corrects that problem by directing the BLM to fulfil all legal requirements for the transfer of land out of Federal ownership, and providing a dedicated source of funding generated from the sale of this land to continue this process. I want to make it clear that this program will in no way detract from other programs with similar purposes. The bill clearly states that proceeds generated from the disposal of public land, and dedicated to the acquisition of inholdings, will supplement, and not replace, funds appropriated for that purpose through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, the bill states that the BLM should rely on non- Federal entities to conduct appraisals and other research required for the sale or exchange of this land, allowing for the least disruption of existing land and resource management programs. This bill has been a long time in the making. For over a year, now, I have been working with and talking to knowledgeable people, both inside and outside of the current administration, to develop many of the ideas embodied in this bill. Prior to adjournment of the 105th Congress, my staff and I worked closely with the administration on this legislation. I have since received additional comments from the Interior Department, and have included many of their suggestions into this bill. I feel comfortable in stating that by working together, we have reached agreement in principle on the best way to proceed with these very important issues involving the management of public land resources, namely, the disposition of surplus public land in combination with a program to address problems associated with inholdings within our Federal land management units. I look forward to hearings on this matter, and anticipate that most of my fellow Senators will agree that Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act logically addresses this management issue. I believe that in the end, we will be able to stand together and tell the American people that we truly have accomplished a great and innovative thing with this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which addresses longstanding problems encountered by Federal land managers first, in disposing of surplus federal property, and secondly, in acquiring private inholdings within federally designated areas. This legislation builds on existing laws and provides resources dedicated to the consolidation of federal agency land holdings. I first introduced this bill prior to the end of the 105th Congress, as Title II to the Valles Caldera Preservation Act. This portion of that legislation was independent of the proposed acquisition of land in New Mexico, and perhaps more important. Again this year, Congress will commit large sums of federal taxpayer dollars to purchase new property. Before we do, however, it seems prudent to provide a framework for the orderly disposal of unneeded federal property that also commits resources to meet our current obligations to those who hold land surrounded by federal property. Currently, one-third of the land area in New Mexico is owned by the Federal government. On average, across the eleven Western States, the Federal government owns approximately one half of the land. I agree that this public land is an important natural resource that requires our most thoughtful consideration in the way it is managed and used by the public. To best conserve our existing national treasures for future use and enjoyment, we must devise, with the concurrence of other members of Congress and the President, a definite plan and timetable to dispose of surplus land through sale or exchange into private, or State and local government ownership. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act provides for the orderly disposition of unneeded Federal property on a state by state basis. It also addresses the problem of what are known as ``inholdings'' within federally managed areas. These interrelated problems give rise to an interrelated solution proposed in this legislation. There are currently more than 45 million acres of privately owned land trapped within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In many cases, the location of these tracts, referred to as inholdings, makes the exercise of private property rights difficult for the land owner. In addition, management of the public land is made more cumbersome for the Federal managers. There are also cases where inholders have been waiting generations for the federal government to set aside funding and prioritize the acquisition of their property. With rapidly growing public demand for the use of public land, it is increasingly difficult for federal managers to address problems created by inholdings in many areas. This legislation directs the Department of the Interior to identify inholdings existing within Federal land management units that landowners that have indicated a desire to sell to the Federal government. Inholdings will only be considered for acquisition by the Secretary of Interior if, after public notice, landowners indicate their willingness to sell. The Secretary will then establish a priority for their acquisition considering, among other factors, those which have existed as inholdings for the longest time. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the use of the proceeds generated from sale of land no longer needed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to purchase these inholdings from willing sellers. This will enhance the ability of the Federal land management agencies to work cooperatively with private land owners, and with State and local governments, to consolidate the ownership of public and private land in a manner that would allow for better overall resource management. There is an abundance of public domain land that the BLM has determined it no longer needs to fulfil its mission. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM has identified an estimated four to six million acres of public domain land for disposal, with public input and consultation with State and local governments as required by law. Let me state this very clearly--the BLM already has authority under an existing law, FLPMA, to exchange or sell land out of Federal ownership. Through its public process for land use planning, when the agency has determined that certain land would be more useful to the public under private or local governmental control, it is already authorized to dispose of this land, either by sale or exchange. This legislation maintains every aspect of existing law. It also provides an orderly process, and sufficient resources, for the BLM to exercise it. The sale or exchange of land which I have often referred to as ``surplus,'' would be beneficial to local communities, adjoining land owners, and BLM land mangers, alike. First, it would allow for the reconfiguration of land ownership patterns to better facilitate resource management. Second, it would contribute to administrative efficiency within federal land management units, by allowing for better allocation of fiscal and human resources within the agency. Finally, in certain locations, the sale of public land which has been identified for disposal is the best way for the public to realize a fair value for this land. The problem is that an orderly process for the efficient disposition of lands identified for disposal does not currently exist. This legislation corrects that problem by directing the BLM to fulfil all legal requirements for the transfer of land out of Federal ownership, and providing a dedicated source of funding generated from the sale of this land to continue this process. I want to make it clear that this program will in no way detract from other programs with similar purposes. The bill clearly states that proceeds generated from the disposal of public land, and dedicated to the acquisition of inholdings, will supplement, and not replace, funds appropriated for that purpose through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, the bill states that the BLM should rely on non- Federal entities to conduct appraisals and other research required for the sale or exchange of this land, allowing for the least disruption of existing land and resource management programs. This bill has been a long time in the making. For over a year, now, I have been working with and talking to knowledgeable people, both inside and outside of the current administration, to develop many of the ideas embodied in this bill. Prior to adjournment of the 105th Congress, my staff and I worked closely with the administration on this legislation. I have since received additional comments from the Interior Department, and have included many of their suggestions into this bill. I feel comfortable in stating that by working together, we have reached agreement in principle on the best way to proceed with these very important issues involving the management of public land resources, namely, the disposition of surplus public land in combination with a program to address problems associated with inholdings within our Federal land management units. I look forward to hearings on this matter, and anticipate that most of my fellow Senators will agree that Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act logically addresses this management issue. I believe that in the end, we will be able to stand together and tell the American people that we truly have accomplished a great and innovative thing with this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Hatch, Hutchison, DeWine, Chafee, Lugar, Abraham, Santorum, and Warner in submitting our Senate Resolution on ``English-Plus.'' With this resolution, we are affirming the importance of mastering the English language plus other languages of the world, such as Spanish, Italian, German, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and many, many more. English is the most widely used language in the world in the areas of finance, trade, technology, diplomacy, and entertainment. English is also the world's living library of the last 100 years of scientific and technological advances. There is no doubt that English is as close as any language in history to becoming the world's dominant language. As Americans, we have always valued our ``melting pot'' ideal. The business of this country is conducted in English, and there is much pride in the ability to speak English as well as to read and write in one's native language. Those who know English and have mastered another language or two have a distinct advantage in a more competitive world. As the son of an Italian immigrant, I can personally testify to the importance of the concept of English Plus. My father did not read or write in English, yet he insisted that I learn English first and do my best at speaking and writing Italian. My parents both spoke Spanish--a skill which they found very useful in establishing a wholesale grocery business in Albuquerque. Tens of thousands of New Mexico families still speak Spanish at home. Spanish remains a strong tie to their culture, music, history, and folklore. After decades of being taught to learn English first, many thousands of New Mexico's Hispanic families also speak Spanish fluently. In New Mexico, 1998 marked the 400th anniversary of the first permanent Spanish settlement near San Juan Pueblo in the Espanola Valley. Many celebrations and educational events marked this important anniversary. Hispanic culture, customs, and language received much attention throughout New Mexico. More than a third of New Mexico's population is Hispanic, and the Spanish language and culture have a special place in our state's distinctive blend of Spanish, Anglo, and Indian cultures. New Mexico is the only state in the United States that has a constitutional requirement to use both English and Spanish in election materials and ballots. In New Mexico, 37 percent of the people are Spanish-Americans or Mexican-Americans. The term ``Hispanic Americans'' is used in our country to describe Americans whose roots are in Spain, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central America, and South America. As U.S. News reported in the May 11, 1998, issue, ``the label Hispanic obscures the enormous diversity among people who come (or whose forebears came) from two dozen countries and whose ancestry ranges from pure Spanish to mixtures of Spanish blood with Native American, African, German, and Italian, to name a few hybrids.'' U.S. News also reported that ``The number of Hispanics is increasing almost four times as fast as the rest of the population, and they are expected to surpass African-Americans as the largest minority group by 2005.'' In the October 21, 1996, issue, U.S. News reported that ``Nearly 28 million people--1 American in 10--consider themselves of Hispanic origin.'' By 2050, projections are that 1 in every 4 Americans will be Hispanic. An article in The Economist of April 21, 1998, stresses the value of the Spanish language to America's fastest growing minority group. ``America's Latinos are rapidly becoming one of its most useful resources.'' In the western hemisphere, Spanish is clearly a prominent language. With established and emerging markets in Mexico, Central America, and South America, the Spanish language is a key to foreign competition in our own hemisphere. As the world economy moves into the next century, it has become clear the ``domestic-only market planning'' has been replaced by the era of international trade agreements and the creation of regional trading blocs. In 1996, the total volume of trade with Mexico was estimated at $130 billion. Our trade with the rest of Latin America that same year was $101 billion. Spanish is clearly a growing cultural and economic force in our hemisphere. It is also the common language of hundreds of millions of people. Recent economic trends of this decade show Latin America as the most promising future market for American goods and services. With Latin America as the next great market partner of the United States, those Americans who know both English and Spanish will have many new grand opportunities. Mexico's recently hired and celebrated its one-millioneth maquiladora worker in international manufacturing plants along our border. This milestone event unquestionably shows the value of knowing two languages as manufacturing expands among the hundreds of Fortune 500 companies now manufacturing in Mexico. Mr. President, I have long believed that New Mexico and other border states are uniquely poised to create the focal point of North American trade with South America. I agree with The Economist observation that ``America's Latinos are rapidly becoming one of its most useful resources.'' I predict that English Plus Spanish will be one of the major marketable skills for the next century. In conclusion, I would like my colleagues to see the value of ``English Plus'' Spanish in our own hemisphere. ``English Plus'' and other European languages has long been a shared value, and ``English Plus'' African and Asian languages have become very important also. In every corner of the world, foreign languages matter to us for cultural, economic, and security reasons. Worldwide, we see a renaissance in cultural assertiveness where countries take greater interest in preserving and sharing their own cultural identities. As nations grow more interdependent economically, there is a parallel interest in maintaining their own cultural integrity, with language as a key linchpin of cultural identity. Mr. President, our nation's potential markets in Mexico, Central America, and South America alone spell a vital future for ``English Plus'' Spanish. If we want to continue to expand our nations's cultural and economic American influence in the world, then we urge the adoption of ``English Plus'' as our national policy. We believe this approach will lead to a more prosperous and secure world. We believe we should not isolate America to English only and to do that would be a big mistake. The Senate resolution I am speaking of supports and encourages Americans to master English first and English plus other languages. We believe we should add to that, but not English only. We see English plus other languages as a more sensible statement of our national policy. Our Nation is rich in resources. We want to encourage American citizens to learn other prominent languages that the world uses and that we must use in the world and that many in our country use as part of their cultural background. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our resolution regarding English plus other languages be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Texas have any time remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. The issue now is not whether you want to vote for this bill or not. The issue is whether you want to support a motion to waive the point of order, a very specific, new point of order; I helped draft it. It is a nice point of order. Whether you want to waive it or not, that is the issue. If you want to vote against the bill, you can still do that but, frankly, you should move to waive this so that when those people who want to vote for this bill vote for it, they are not confronted with having to cut Government 3.75 percent in order to accomplish the purposes suggested here by my good friend from Texas, Senator Gramm. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 206 of H. Con. Res. 68 and section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all points of order against this conference report.

Mr. DOMENICI. No.

Mr. DOMENICI. I misunderstood when I quickly gave the Senator 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. And speak 15 more minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what has the Senator been doing? I thought we gave him 20 minutes so he can do that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will not object. Mr. President, Senator Stevens has left the floor and I am here in his stead. Please enlighten the Senate as to the time situation pursuant to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in conclusion, Senator Gramm makes a lot of good points. I believe we make some good points, also. I don't believe we ought to, at this stage of the budget year, adopt a point of order that will send us back to all of the Government programs, some of which many of us don't like, some of which many of us love, most of which are halfway through a year. I don't believe we ought to go back and have them cut 3.7 percent across the board. One thing about missing our budget targets--the so-called caps, Mr. President--the overwhelming percentage of supplemental appropriations have been for real emergencies, or emergencies that the President of the United States asked us for and in which we concurred. That is what the Budget Act says; caps are binding except for emergencies; emergency money is not subject to caps. That is what we have here. I hope we pass this appropriations bill today and fund what our military desperately needs to replenish the Kosovo war and replenish the military equipment and the time that was spent in Central America for the disaster that killed 10,000 of our neighbors in Central America. Those are predominant items in this bill. There are a lot of small ones that are difficult to justify, but in a real sense they don't really amount to the essence of this bill, which is emergencies we cannot contemplate. I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, not too long ago Senator Gramm and I stood on the floor shoulder to shoulder preparing a budget for the United States. Not too long ago, I came up with the idea of a lockbox for Social Security. Once my friend, Senator Gramm, saw it, a few words of congratulations and a few thoughts on how to make it perhaps a little better, we stood shoulder to shoulder that we wanted to save the Social Security trust fund. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. The Senator from New Mexico is proud of the budget that is going to operate for the year 2000, the new millennium. It is going to be a tough budget, and we are going to try to live with it. But I do not believe we should leave the floor today with a lot of Americans, if they were listening, thinking that the budget of the United States is out of control. Sometimes my good friend from Texas overstates the case. And by overstating the case, sometimes, instead of being as effective as he could be, he is a little less effective. Nobody looking at the budget of the United States as it pertains to the accounts we are talking about, defense and appropriated domestic accounts, thinks it is out of control. As a matter of fact, the whole world looks at this budget, the one that the Senator from Texas is saying is out of control, and says, how do you do it? You are doing so well. As a matter of fact, the defense spending which is in this budget-- part of the budget that the Senator is talking about--is at the lowest level and under control, the lowest level since World War II, the end of World War II, in terms of the percent of our gross domestic product that goes to defense. Likewise, the domestic spending that he is alluding to, out of control, says he, well, let me tell you, it is the lowest in history in terms of the percent of GDP. We are doing a great job of controlling this part of the budget. He and I may come to the floor and discuss another issue where we might agree, but it has nothing to do with this bill, nothing to do with these ideas that he is alluding to today about the budget. They have to do with entitlements and mandatory spending. So for those who think the budget has gotten kind of big, we have to face up to where it is that it is getting its pot belly. It is not getting it from these two accounts, defense and domestic discretionary spending. That is the truth. The Senator referred to families and their budgets. I noticed some people were listening to him almost enraptured thinking about their own checkbooks. To compare a family checkbook with a great American country that has a war going on in Kosovo that we didn't know about 6 months ago and expect us not to have to spend some money for that is to compare an individual American family in their kitchen with their checkbook to a country that is at war and needs money to fight the war. That is what is principally behind this appropriations bill. The overwhelming percentage of this spending is for the defense of our Nation, if that is why we are in Kosovo, because we have something to defend. And whether you like the war or you don't like the war, it costs money. It isn't predicted in the family checkbook that in the middle of the month you are going to have a war, because families don't have wars. They don't go out and buy more tanks and more airplanes, when they have a disaster. That is point No. 1--the budget is not out of control. Point No. 2--the overwhelming percentage of this particular bill is for the defense of our Nation. Many of us are proud that we put more money in than the President had asked us for. We thought the President low-balled the request because he didn't want to be embarrassed about this war, and so he has far too little money. We put in $5 billion more in this bill. Take that to the American people and ask them: Would you do that, or would you not do that? Would you believe Senator Gramm's reasoning for saying let's cut some other American programs to pay for that? By the way, the sequester which he is speaking about, the across-the- board cut which will be done by the Office of Management and Budget, the President's people, it will not be 1.25 percent for all the rest of the accounts. Because the year is so far down, it will be almost 4 percent, 3.75 percent, or some $3 billion. Is that what we should do when we have emergencies, cut all of Government across the board 3.75 percent, not when the budget starts, but when the budget year is half over with or more than half over with, just say we are going to cut it? Families do not do that either, if you want to talk about families. They don't come along when they have all their children's bills paid for and everything else and say that we are going to cut 3.75 percent out of it and spend it for something else. They don't have that kind of problem. That is what we are going to be confronted with for American programs in education, in construction, in highways, in everything. It is just not worth it, in this Senator's opinion. The longer you wait and delay this bill, the more the demands are going to be, not less. They will be more. Let me just give you one more. If we are out of control, every country in Europe and every industrial democracy in the world has already gone out of this world. They are all spending more than we are as a percentage of their budgets. Their budgets are much higher than ours. And that is why we are doing so well--because our budgets are low, and our taxes must remain low. To be sure on my comments about how low defense spending is and how low domestic spending is versus other years and other nations, I have that on two pieces of paper. I ask that those two documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago I rose to speak and share with my fellow Senators an extraordinary exchange that occurred between myself and Interior Secretary Babbitt regarding the failings of the Endangered Species Act in a situation on the Rio Grande River in New Mexico. I told you that the Secretary's remarks were significant because they acknowledged that this law, however well intentioned, is not working. I felt Secretary Babbitt's testimony before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee could open the door to significant reform of the Endangered Species Act, permitting all parties to work together. I pledged to begin serious work on improving the Endangered Species Act, and I am immensely pleased today to be cosponsoring this bill with Senators Chafee and Crapo to do just that. I was in the Senate to vote in favor of the Endangered Species Act, but the courts are implementing it in a cart before the horse fashion never contemplated by the Congress. The focus of saving species should be on planning recovery, not using premature habitat designation as a hammer on the heads of humans sharing that habitat. We want to protect endangered species, but we don't want to unnecessarily hurt people. Tying critical habitat designation to recovery plan implementation is logical, defensible, and the right thing to do. This legislation goes directly to the heart of this issue. The protection of endangered species is supposed to be accomplished by first figuring out the necessary habitat for survival, then designating that critical habitat. But the Endangered Species Act and the courts are rushing the process. According to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, recent litigation will ``strait jacket'' the federal government into prematurely designating the critical habitat for, in one case, the Rio Grande silvery minnow. People in D.C. tend to forget that the western United States is the arid, ``great American desert.'' Western rivers and streams are primarily supported by melting snow pack. They change annually from roaring torrents in April to bare trickles in June, to dried up river beds in August. The Rio Grande, despite its ``big river'' title, is no exception to this cyclical flow. As a child, I often walked across the dry riverbed in Albuquerque. This will be a very dry year in the normally arid New Mexico. The historical hydrographic record shows that between 1899 and 1936, long before Albuquerque grew, or the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District started to farm, the Rio Grande was dry twenty percent of the time in August as measured at the San Marcial Gauge. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prodded by various groups, are claiming a ``new'' water demand on the river for the silvery minnow. They should assert the interest in the water needed for the minnow, but the demand isn't new. The issue, however, is how should that interest be asserted and what the need really is. And, once known, how do we continue to address the human water needs, and at what cost? I believe something is terribly wrong in the way the courts are handling this situation because you may have to close down a river to human users without knowing the habitat needs for an endangered species. The Secretary of Interior is required to base critical habitat designation on the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact of that designation. I asked Secretary Babbitt whether the Interior Department had sufficient data to determine the true water needs to sustain the silvery minnow in the Rio Grande, and to make an accurate economic and social assessment of what a critical habitat designation would mean to existing water rights owners. Babbitt testified that his department does not have sufficient information, but that it has no choice but to act because of federal court orders. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that the best scientific and commercial data available must be used to designate a critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate in the context of a final recovery plan for an endangered species, because that plan must specifically address conservation needs and costs of recovery. This bill will move the requirement to designate habitat from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. The quantity of water needed by the Rio Grande silvery minnow is unknown. The Fish and Wildlife Service has conceded that there has never been a thorough study of the economic consequences of providing water as a critical habitat for the minnow. While we all want the silvery minnow and other endangered species to have their critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation acknowledge that they do not know what the ``critical habitat'' is or should be. Were the consequences of designation insignificant, a guesstimate might be acceptable. However, as noted by the Bureau of Reclamation, a designation requiring year- round continuous flows on a river that has never produced such flows could have a ``profound effect on downstream water users.'' We must not try to cure the problem of endangered species with premature, uninformed, unscientific critical habitat designation, the validity of which has not been substantiated by adequate economic, scientific and social research. When the scientific facts on the possible side effects of a drug are unknown, the Food and Drug Administration does not authorize the sale of that drug. Likewise, the Endangered Species Act should not permit designation of critical habitat until we have scientifically determined that the habitat designation will be helpful to the species and does not impose unnecessary social and economic side effects. It is abundantly clear that a complete environmental analysis of a critical habitat designation is an absolute necessity. Senator Chafee, Senator Crapo, and I are now addressing this illogical and unworkable current situation with this bill. I thank them for their leadership on the Environment Committee. We will be working with the administration, and I encourage all my fellow Senators to participate in this limited, local and necessary endangered Species Act reform. This bill will now tie designation of critical habitat to the development of recovery plans for endangered and threatened species, as it should be. Federal agencies should not have their hands tied by premature designation, forced by litigation. If we want to save species, as was and is the intent of the Endangered Species Act, then we have to plan how to recover them. Recovery plans require objective and measurable criteria for saving species, specific descriptions of management actions, and cost estimates for those actions. This bill will create a mandatory deadline for developing final, comprehensive recovery plans. Critical habitat will now be designated in conjunction with those plans. These changes will go towards achieving the original goal of the Endangered Species Act. I am very proud to be a part of this historic legislation, and I anticipate a bipartisan group, along with the administration, feels as I do. The time has come for common-sense reform to the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue raised by the Hatch amendment number 322, which the Senate agreed to on Tuesday, May 11. While I support both the underlying bill and this amendment, I am concerned about a portion of this amendment which is within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the Budget. The Hatch amendment contained language which amends that portion of the 1994 Crime Bill which created the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. This portion of the amendment does two things: (1) it extends the fund through fiscal year 2005 and (2) it extends the discretionary spending limits (albeit indirectly) through fiscal year 2005 for the violent crime reduction category. As a result, the amendment was subject to a point of order pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it contained matter within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and was offered to a bill that was not reported by the committee. I chose not to challenge this provision because I support the underlying legislation and I have been assured by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator hatch, that my concerns will be addressed when the bill goes to conference. Let me begin by saying that I support full funding for crime fighting efforts. I am, however, troubled by this amendment because--in its attempt to ensure funds are available for these important programs it has stumbled into a series of, as yet, unresolved issues regarding the budget process: should the discretionary spending limits be extended beyond fiscal year 2002? If yes, should there be limits within the overall cap for items such as defense, highways and mass transit, and crime? Current law (section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) provides limits on discretionary spending (the ``caps'') through the end of fiscal year 2002. When the issue of the caps was last addressed during deliberations on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress decided that the overall caps on discretionary spending would end after 2002, that the defense cap would end after 1999, and that the crime cap would end after 2000. This was decided as part of a very carefully crafted compromise between the Congress and the President, involving both mandatory and discretionary spending, that has now led us to a balanced budget. Our ability to live within these discretionary caps has played a significant role in producing not only a balanced budget, but surplus for the foreseeable future. Thus I feel it is not appropriate at this time to extend only the crime cap without addressing the broader issue of the appropriate level of discretionary spending. Moreover, I fear that raising the issue of the caps at this time will unnecessarily complicate the passage of this important juvenile justice legislation. I know that I do not have to remind my colleagues how difficult it is going to be both this year and next to pass all 13 appropriations bills and stay within the caps which we currently have in place for the next three years. While I am supportive of funding for criminal justice programs, I am concerned that extending the crime cap will only make an already difficult task that much harder. I might also point out to my colleagues that by extending only the crime cap and not the overall cap, this legislation has the effect of limiting crime spending for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 when there will be no such limits upon any other type of discretionary spending. I thank my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for recognizing my concern with this amendment and I look forward to working with him on this issue when the bill is in conference.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might not even take that long. I want to compliment the Senator from Missouri for his proposal and just speak a little bit about a word that is on a lot of people's minds these days. In fact, many people are saying: Boy, it sure would be great if we could get responsibility back into our schools so our children could learn what responsibility means. I think it would be great if we could get the entertainment industry to show a little responsibility. Some responsibility from those who make films and produce TV shows, produce advertisements, produce many of the vile computer games our young people are using so they become excellent sharpshooters, excellent killers. In fact, some of these computer games have made our children proficient at shooting people right through the head, one after another, because they learned it on the computer game. Everyone seems to be saying that our children need to learn greater responsibility. Actually, Hollywood and those who produce television shows and movies, they are the ones in need of a new sense of responsibility. I do not know any way, under our Constitution, to stop what is happening. I do not know if I would be wise enough to figure it out. But I tell you, the adults who are in the entertainment industry have to, sooner or later, look at themselves and say: What is our responsibility to the young people of this country? Right now it seems there is none, other than to make money. If the adults in the entertainment industry continue to refuse to produce films that are good for our young people, even if it is more difficult to sell them, if they refuse to go out and get innovative people to write the kinds of things that are salutary and healthy and helpful, then I believe they are irresponsible. I believe they need a lesson in responsibility. Instead, they hide admirably behind the Constitution. I believe, if our forefathers who put the First Amendment in the Constitution, the freedom of speech that the entertainment industry hides behind, could see what they produce, what they feed to our young people, what they feed to our society under the alleged protection of that Amendment, I believe they would reconsider and try to figure some way to make sure we had a bit more responsibility built into this aspect of the American free enterprise system. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago I rose to speak and share with my fellow Senators an extraordinary exchange that occurred between myself and Interior Secretary Babbitt regarding the failings of the Endangered Species Act in a situation on the Rio Grande River in New Mexico. I told you that the Secretary's remarks were significant because they acknowledged that this law, however well intentioned, is not working. I felt Secretary Babbitt's testimony before the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee could open the door to significant reform of the Endangered Species Act, permitting all parties to work together. I pledged to begin serious work on improving the Endangered Species Act, and I am immensely pleased today to be cosponsoring this bill with Senators Chafee and Crapo to do just that. I was in the Senate to vote in favor of the Endangered Species Act, but the courts are implementing it in a cart before the horse fashion never contemplated by the Congress. The focus of saving species should be on planning recovery, not using premature habitat designation as a hammer on the heads of humans sharing that habitat. We want to protect endangered species, but we don't want to unnecessarily hurt people. Tying critical habitat designation to recovery plan implementation is logical, defensible, and the right thing to do. This legislation goes directly to the heart of this issue. The protection of endangered species is supposed to be accomplished by first figuring out the necessary habitat for survival, then designating that critical habitat. But the Endangered Species Act and the courts are rushing the process. According to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, recent litigation will ``strait jacket'' the federal government into prematurely designating the critical habitat for, in one case, the Rio Grande silvery minnow. People in D.C. tend to forget that the western United States is the arid, ``great American desert.'' Western rivers and streams are primarily supported by melting snow pack. They change annually from roaring torrents in April to bare trickles in June, to dried up river beds in August. The Rio Grande, despite its ``big river'' title, is no exception to this cyclical flow. As a child, I often walked across the dry riverbed in Albuquerque. This will be a very dry year in the normally arid New Mexico. The historical hydrographic record shows that between 1899 and 1936, long before Albuquerque grew, or the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District started to farm, the Rio Grande was dry twenty percent of the time in August as measured at the San Marcial Gauge. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prodded by various groups, are claiming a ``new'' water demand on the river for the silvery minnow. They should assert the interest in the water needed for the minnow, but the demand isn't new. The issue, however, is how should that interest be asserted and what the need really is. And, once known, how do we continue to address the human water needs, and at what cost? I believe something is terribly wrong in the way the courts are handling this situation because you may have to close down a river to human users without knowing the habitat needs for an endangered species. The Secretary of Interior is required to base critical habitat designation on the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact of that designation. I asked Secretary Babbitt whether the Interior Department had sufficient data to determine the true water needs to sustain the silvery minnow in the Rio Grande, and to make an accurate economic and social assessment of what a critical habitat designation would mean to existing water rights owners. Babbitt testified that his department does not have sufficient information, but that it has no choice but to act because of federal court orders. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that the best scientific and commercial data available must be used to designate a critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat is more appropriate in the context of a final recovery plan for an endangered species, because that plan must specifically address conservation needs and costs of recovery. This bill will move the requirement to designate habitat from the time of listing to the time of recovery plan development. The quantity of water needed by the Rio Grande silvery minnow is unknown. The Fish and Wildlife Service has conceded that there has never been a thorough study of the economic consequences of providing water as a critical habitat for the minnow. While we all want the silvery minnow and other endangered species to have their critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation acknowledge that they do not know what the ``critical habitat'' is or should be. Were the consequences of designation insignificant, a guesstimate might be acceptable. However, as noted by the Bureau of Reclamation, a designation requiring year- round continuous flows on a river that has never produced such flows could have a ``profound effect on downstream water users.'' We must not try to cure the problem of endangered species with premature, uninformed, unscientific critical habitat designation, the validity of which has not been substantiated by adequate economic, scientific and social research. When the scientific facts on the possible side effects of a drug are unknown, the Food and Drug Administration does not authorize the sale of that drug. Likewise, the Endangered Species Act should not permit designation of critical habitat until we have scientifically determined that the habitat designation will be helpful to the species and does not impose unnecessary social and economic side effects. It is abundantly clear that a complete environmental analysis of a critical habitat designation is an absolute necessity. Senator Chafee, Senator Crapo, and I are now addressing this illogical and unworkable current situation with this bill. I thank them for their leadership on the Environment Committee. We will be working with the administration, and I encourage all my fellow Senators to participate in this limited, local and necessary endangered Species Act reform. This bill will now tie designation of critical habitat to the development of recovery plans for endangered and threatened species, as it should be. Federal agencies should not have their hands tied by premature designation, forced by litigation. If we want to save species, as was and is the intent of the Endangered Species Act, then we have to plan how to recover them. Recovery plans require objective and measurable criteria for saving species, specific descriptions of management actions, and cost estimates for those actions. This bill will create a mandatory deadline for developing final, comprehensive recovery plans. Critical habitat will now be designated in conjunction with those plans. These changes will go towards achieving the original goal of the Endangered Species Act. I am very proud to be a part of this historic legislation, and I anticipate a bipartisan group, along with the administration, feels as I do. The time has come for common-sense reform to the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1141, the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The pending bill includes emergency funding to finance the United States participation in NATO military operations in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. This supplemental makes available $11.0 billion in emergency, and contingency emergency, defense appropriations based on the crisis in Kosovo and the closely related readiness crisis in our armed forces. Of these funds, $10.8 billion are appropriated to the Department of Defense: The supplemental provides the $5.5 billion the President requested for military operations in Kosovo and Department of Defense refugee assistance. It also provides some very needed readiness funding, specifically: $1.0 billion for procurement of depleted munitions stocks; $1.1 billion for spare parts, stocks of which have reached crisis proportions for some weapon systems; $700 million for overdue maintenance of these same weapons systems; $100 million for recruiting to address DoD's retention crisis; $200 million to improve the declining training of military personnel in high priority military specialties, and $200 million to repair aging bases. These are important additions that clearly merit this additional funding and an ``emergency'' designation. Some will argue that these adds for defense are too much; others will argue, correctly I believe, that these readiness increases are overdue. I have received both official and unofficial reports of extremely serious readiness problems in our armed forces. This additional funding will just begin to address these problems correctly. The legislation also makes $475 million available to the Secretary of Defense for Military Construction for him to use, under proper controls, as he sees fit. Another $1.8 billion is provided for military pay and pensions, subject to authorization legislation that Congress may choose to enact. Both of these latter additions are deemed ``contingent emergencies.'' The money will only be expended if the President agrees that the needs constitute an emergency and the funds should be spent for the stated purpose. The President need not spend these funds if he so selects. This, I believe, is an appropriate way to make these funds available. I strongly support these funds for our troops in the Balkans and for those in other parts of the world who may soon find themselves also involved in this troubling conflict. Regardless of our views regarding the conflict in the Balkans, we must fully support our armed forces being employed there and ensure that their equipment and training is fully and completely supported. It would be dangerous and foolish to do anything less. The conferees also provide $1.1 billion for humanitarian assistance to refugees from Kosovo. Congress provided an additional $548 million above the President's request to aid refugees that have fled Kosovo and the 20,000 that are temporarily resettling in the United States. This is a significant infusion of resources to address an increasingly desperate situation in the nations bordering Kosovo. I commend the managers of the conference report for including the emergency aid to Central American countries who suffered form the ravages of Hurricane Mitch. This aid is for our neighbors who faced devastation of Biblical proportions last fall. The final aid package totals $814 million for the region. I remind my colleagues that the United States has worked for more than a quarter of a century to help develop democratic movements in this region. The need to move quickly and pass this funding cannot be overstated. When I visited the region in December, I was gratified to hear government agencies and relief groups emphasize over and over again, ``We want your help, not forever, but so we can begin to help ourselves and continue building stable and democratic societies.'' In addition to these critical items, the final bill addresses the President's request for a $100 million appropriation for Jordan under the Wye Peace Accord. The Congress also provides an additional $574 million for aid to America's farmers following the $5.9 billion in emergency aid approved by Congress last October. It is also important to note that the conferees have taken swift action to ensure that sufficient disaster aid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, is available for Oklahoma, Kansas, and other Midwestern states that have been severely damaged by recent tornadoes. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a table by the Congressional Budget Office that summarizes the spending in the pending bill. Mr. President, including offsets to some of the nondefense emergency and non-emergency spending in the bill, the net total of the final bill is $11.35 billion in BA and $3.7 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. An estimated $2.0 billion in BA and $7.4 billion in outlays will be expended in fiscal year 2000 according to CBO estimates of the bill. Finally, I address an issue raised by the inclusion of a provision in the conference report concerning the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC. Because this language in the conference report attempts to change the way we treat an OPIC program under title V of the Budget Act (The Federal Credit Reform Act), it violates section 306 of the Budget Act. We have consulted with CBO and OMB, and both agencies say they will not change their treatment of OPIC programs from past practices because of this provision. Therefore I will not challenge this language, because I do not think the conference report will have any practical effect on credit reform or our budgetary treatment of OPIC programs. I support this bill. It is largely an emergency spending package that responds to serious natural disasters at home and abroad, and to the NATO military campaign in the Balkans and the resulting tragedy of thousands of Kosovar refugees displaced during this conflict. I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table to which I referred be printed in the Record.