Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am joining my cosponsors, Senators Bingaman, Frist, Lieberman, and Snowe, in introducing the Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 1999. This bill makes the research tax credit permanent and significantly improves the structure of that credit. Many Senators are for this extension, and it is high time, and for the permanentization of this credit. This also adjusts the credit to today. That credit was put in place many years ago, and much of what it does doesn't fit today's industrial base, including many startup companies that cannot take the right kind of credit. We have made some changes which will make it cost a little bit more, but I think the Finance Committee should take a look at some of the changes that are in this Domenici-Bingaman bill, because it will make the credit more effective and more available. In March of 1998, 150 of our Nation's top decisionmakers met at MIT for the first national innovative summit. The summit leaders included CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders, Governors, Members of Congress, and senior administrative officials. In essence, they conclude that in order to keep the United States of America on the cutting edge of research that can be applied to innovative things for America's future and for our businesses, that we must make this tax permanent, that dollar for dollar it is the best investment in both general research and specific research to keep America strong and competitive in the world. When those people say dollar for dollar it is the most effective, they are saying it is more effective than programmatic assistance to research, which obviously is very necessary, and we continue to expand upon and have it grow. But if you don't make this permanent, you are losing a lot of research by American businesses, No. 1. If you don't correct it, you will lose the effectiveness among companies that need it the most. And third, you will see to it that more, rather than less, American companies do research overseas. Research jobs are great jobs. They are just as much a part of America's basic prosperity as are the jobs that come from that research by way of products or activities. Mr. President, advanced technologies drive a significant part of our nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the nation. The majority of new products requires industrial research and development to reach the market stage. I want to encourage that research and development to create new products to ensure that our factories stay busy and that our workforce stays fully employed at high salaried jobs. I want more of our large multi-national companies to select the United States as the location of their R&D. R&D done here creates American jobs. And since frequently the benefits of research in one area apply in another area, I want those spin-off benefits here, too. Congress created the Research Tax Credit to encourage companies to perform research. But many studies document that the present form of this Tax Credit is not providing as much stimulation to industrial R&D as it could. Today, we're introducing legislation to improve the Research Tax Credit. In March of 1998, 150 of our nation's top decision makers met at MIT, for the first National Innovation Summit. The Summit included corporate CEO's, university presidents, labor leaders, governors, members of Congress, and Senior Administration officials. At the Summit, these experts discussed the health of the future national research base. More than three-quarters of them thought that the quality of that base would be no better or worse than it is today, with nearly one third projecting that it would be weaker. The Summit participants singled out the Research Tax Credit as the policy measure with the greatest potential for a positive near-term impact. The Council on Competitiveness, who co-sponsored that Summit, stated that ``making the [Research] Tax Credit permanent reflected a widely share consensus among leaders whose companies and universities contribute decisively to the nation's economy.'' The single most important change in our bill is to make the Credit permanent. Many studies point out that the temporary nature of the Credit has prevented companies from building careful research strategies. Many of my colleagues in Congress have also expressed interest in making the Credit permanent. But we're urging them to go beyond that action and, at the same time, address shortcomings that have been identified in the current Credit. I want to use the current enthusiasm for permanence to also craft a Credit that will better serve the nation. For example, the current Credit references a company's research intensity back to 1984-88. That's too outdated to meet today's dynamic market conditions. Many companies are involved today in products that weren't even invented in 1984. Our legislation allows a company to base their credit on their research intensity averaged over the preceding eight years. It also allows companies to stay with the current formulation of the Credit if they prefer. Our bill builds other improvements into the Credit as well. For example, the Alternative Research Credit component has been criticized because it only rewards the maintenance level of a company's research, it does not provide significant motivation to increase research intensity. With our proposed changes, the Alternative Credit now incorporates the same 20 percent motivation for increased research intensity that is found in the regular Credit--this is a major improvement. We also increase the base level of the Alternative Credit significantly. The current Credit has a provision that severely restricts the ability of start-up companies to fully benefit. Analysis by the Congressional Research Service showed that 5 our of 6 start-up companies received reduced benefits because of a current provision that limits their allowable increase in research expenditures. I'm concerned when start-up companies aren't receiving full Credit. These are just the companies that drive the innovative cycle in this country; they are the ones that frequently bring out the newest leading-edge products. Our legislation thus drops this limitation and introduces additional help for start-up businesses. Our legislation addresses several other shortcomings in the current Credit as well. Now there is a ``Basic Research Credit'' allowed, but rarely used. This should be encouraging research conducted at universities. But that part of the Credit is now defined to include only research that does ``not have a specific commercial objective.'' There aren't many companies that want to support--much less admit to their stockholders that they are supporting--research with no commercial interest. The idea of this clause was to encourage support of long term research, which is a fine idea. This is the kind of research that benefits far more than just the next product improvement. It can enable a whole new product or service and we need to encourage it. Our legislation adds major incentives for basic research by dropping the requirement that only increments above a baseline can be used and by including any research that is done for a consortium of U.S. companies or any research that is destined for open literature publication. We're also allowing this Credit to apply to research done in national labs. And finally our legislation recognizes the importance of encouraging companies to use research capabilities wherever they exist in the country, whether in other businesses, universities, or national labs. The current credit disallows 35% of all expenses for research performed under an external contract--our legislation allows all such expenses to apply towards the Credit when the research is performed at a university, small business, or national laboratory. In summary, this bill incorporates all the improvement suggested in other bills that primarily make the credit permanent and provide some increase in the alternative credit. But this bill goes further and corrects weaknesses in the current formulation of the Credit. I want to seize this opportunity to make the Research Tax Credit a tool that will truly meet the goals for which it was established. The fact that this bill addresses significant shortcomings in the current Credit has not gone unnoticed. Spokesman for several groups that endorse this bill are here with us today. After Senator Bingaman speaks, I'll invite representatives from the Council on Competitiveness, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, and the American Association of Engineering Societies to add their perspectives. With this new bill, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a summary of the bill, section by section, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona and those who have joined him in this cause. While I disagree, it certainly should not be taken as any diminution of the great respect I have for John McCain and a number of Senators who are here on the floor to support this issue. But, Mr. President, I believe what we should do is to prepare a letter to the President of the United States. I think we should say to the President something like this: ``Mr. President, you are the Commander in Chief. Mr. President, we are engaged in a limited military undertaking joined by our NATO allies in the Kosovo-Yugoslavia area. You, Mr. President, have decided that we should do this; you have decided the limitation and the scope of our involvement.'' When the appropriations bill comes along we will make sure our military men and women get everything they need to protect themselves adequately and in the most safe manner possible, so we are going to support them with all the money they need. Mr. President, we anxiously await further requests from you. If, as a matter of fact, you believe we should proceed beyond the current limited involvement to a broader involvement. If you desire to have our military men and women on the ground trying to take part in operations in Kosovo and Yugoslavia so that what you, Mr. President, say the goal is might be accomplished, you request that of the Senate. We should sign this letter and say that we await the President's request, and it will be dealt with immediately. Frankly, the reason I start my comments that way is I don't believe we should say to a President of the United States and his military commanders, who apparently agree with him, how to conduct his military operations. They don't want to even plan for a land war--the President has said that many times. He has said, If you gave me authority I wouldn't use it. He has made up his mind that this is the kind of war he wants to conduct. We are not privy as Senators to what relationship exists between the NATO countries and the United States of America regarding what is going on over there. What will change some people's minds about their unity of people is if America acts unilaterally or in some way inconsistent with their understandings and agreement. That is not for the Congress; we don't know about those relationships. We don't know about the negotiations taking place now to try to bring this to a conclusion. God willing, it will be brought to a conclusion sooner rather than later. Why should we take unilateral action when he does not ask Congress for it. Regardless of what the Senate may tell him, he alone has the authority to conduct this war. My friend from Arizona almost makes my case by saying whether we do this or not, he has the authority. I think that is what I heard him say--whether we do this or not he has the authority. What are we up to?

Mr. DOMENICI. He is not asking for it. That is the big difference with the Persian Gulf resolution. President Bush asked us in writing and stated what it was about. My other observation--in fact, if the President of the United States and our military commander serving our Nation want to go beyond what we are doing now, I would think he would at least tell us what it means. If they sought from us what President Bush sought, to go into a land war for some reason over there--and it may be necessary--then he should request our approval. As a matter of fact, I wonder from time to time why the President isn't asking for it. The point is, if we asked for it, he would specify his objectives. He wouldn't just send something up here and say he wants to have our men and women go in and do this. We would have some briefings and we would understand what the end game is. We might even understand the risks involved in his plans. Even in expeditiously treating a request, we would get some answers we don't have today. I think we should expect those answers. I don't believe we should involve ourselves in a military venture into the great unknown of that area because we want to in some way tell the President of the United States and the generals and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we want to give you more authority than you think you need; we want to tell you we are giving you more authority than you think you need. We are not offering them any authority that they don't have already under the commander and chief powers of the Constitution. I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't agree with my friend, John McCain, that in order to support the men and women engaged over there in a military event that the President has ordered, that we should not vote for money to protect them and give them what they need unless we are for this resolution. Those just don't follow. As a matter of fact, I want to assure those who are wondering, this is one Senator who will give them as much money as I can justify, to make sure our military is better prepared when we come out of this skirmish than we were when we went in. I do that without any concern that I have not voted to give the President authority to do more because they are already there; I believe I am neglectful in my duty if I did not give them emergency money. First of all, it wouldn't bring them home because they could go on for a long time under the President's Commander in Chief authority. By not doing a supplemental, we wouldn't be getting them out of there. We wouldn't be ending it precipitously. From my standpoint, the Members of the Senate who don't vote for this resolution ought to join in a letter to the President and tell him unequivocally, Mr. President, we understand you are the Commander in Chief, we understand you put us there. Some of us didn't agree but they are there and now here is a letter from us saying if you need more authority from us to engage in a ground war, would you send us a request and brief us adequately on why you need it and we will vote quickly and decide what are our concerted feelings about that event. I think that is a far better way to do it. I will have a letter, in case any Senators would like to join me in sending that kind of letter to the President. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator for yielding me the time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to use it at this point to make a couple of points. Senior citizens, what some like to do is to say, to protect your Social Security trust fund, we are going to hurt other people who are entitled to Federal money because we may have a recession one of these days and things may change. We are aware of that. Read the bill. It says the lockbox is held in abeyance in the event we have two quarters of economic downturn, which normally is called a recession. You hold it steady there and see where we come out. Anybody who would be looking at this kind of proposition would think that is a prudent thing to do. We did that. Likewise, in case of a national emergency like a war, we have said, you cannot not spend money on that, and so there is an emergency that takes place then and you can temporarily use it. Remember, we are holding $1.8 trillion for the seniors and these emergencies of which we are speaking. If they occur, they will be very small in proportion to the good we are doing under this proposal. I, too, hope we can get a true lockbox put together. If bipartisan, fine; if not, I am very comfortable with this one. Cloture Motion

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me suggest that this idea that we are locking out any amendments with our Social Security Protection Act is nice to say, but it isn't true. If the Democrats let us vote on this, we will see whether it passes or not, but once it passes, it is subject to amendments. The good Senator from New Jersey, my dear friend, can offer his substitute or his amendment, but first we have to have an opportunity to vote on this amendment, which for some strange reason, while the other side of the aisle and the President keep saying, ``Let's not spend any of the Social Security trust fund,'' they somehow do not want to vote for a proposition that will really lock it up so it cannot be spent, it cannot be embezzled, as some Democrats called it a few years ago, when you use it. They said you were embezzling the trust fund. I would think if that is true--I never used that word--you ought to lock it up tough, you ought to put a whopping key on it that can't hardly be moved. So that is what we have done. For those who say, ``If you can't spend the Social Security trust fund, you are going to destroy the economy of America,'' that is just absolutely untrue. Would anyone believe that taking a trust fund which belongs to Social Security, using it to pay down the debt until we need it for Social Security reform, would anybody submit that that is going to harm America? That is going to help us. We are going to be reducing the debt right at the right time by a huge amount, which is going to keep inflation down, which is going to keep interest rates down, all of which helps Social Security. All of these arguments about cash management, and you can't pay Social Security--just read the bill. The bill says, under all circumstances the Social Security checks are forthcoming, just by specific item. The management problems that the Treasury Secretary has have been fixed. The truth of the matter is, those on the other side of the aisle think it might be easy to spend this money if you do not have this lockbox. And they are right, it will be easy to spend it. In fact, the President of the United States, in his budget, spent $158 billion of it in the first 5 years. No wonder he does not want this lockbox. It wrecks his budget, because he is already going to spend it. We say, ``No. No, you can't spend it. You challenged us not to spend it. We are for real.'' That is what this is all about. Last but not least, let me suggest that it is really amazing for some on the other side of the aisle to talk about saving both Medicare and Social Security in some kind of a lockbox when you see what it really is. It is sort of a Democratic position that we should not cut taxes for the American people or, if we do, we ought to do it their way--even though we are in the majority and the President has a veto pen, we ought to do it their way. We say there is plenty of money outside of Social Security to give the American taxpayers back a real tax reduction over the next decade. Whenever you say, let's take more of that surplus that does not belong to Social Security, and say let's spend it on something else, you are really choosing not to give the American people a tax reduction that they deserve. Frankly, I do not believe today we are going to get cloture. But I think sooner or later--and hopefully it will not be too much later--we will make this filibuster a real one. We will stay down here until we wear out, around the clock. And let's stay here a couple nights so everybody will understand this is serious business, and who is keeping us from voting on it, to protect our seniors and their money for the next decade when it is most in jeopardy. It will be those on that side of the aisle who will not vote today. They will probably not vote for it the next time. But sooner or later, a lot of Americans are going to be asking, who is holding up the real lockbox that will protect our money? It is going to dawn on a few people on the other side of the aisle that they are and that the American people are cognizant and aware of it, and maybe some people will change their minds. With that, if I have any remaining time, I yield it back. I understand we have agreed to start voting at this time, in any event.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself such time as I use.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have 1 minute?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the majority leader, I make the following opening statement. Today the Senate will immediately begin 30 minutes of debate relating to cloture on the Social Security lockbox issue. Following that debate, the Senate will proceed to two rollcall votes. The first will be a cloture vote on the Abraham amendment to S. 557; the second on S. Res. 33 regarding National Military Appreciation Month, which will take place immediately following the first vote. Therefore, Senators can expect two votes at approximately 10 a.m. For the remainder of the day, the Senate may continue debate on the lockbox issue or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 925 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with the recent tragic events in Colorado, it's good for us to remind one another that there are a lot of terrific young people out there accomplishing great feats involving teamwork, academic study, and a lot of guts. That's why today I want to salute the St. Pius High School academic decathlon team from my hometown in Albuquerque, NM. The St. Pius students just finished in 7th place at the national academic decathlon finals in California. That's the best finish New Mexico young people have ever scored at the decathlon nationals. One of the St. Pius team members said it best about the contest. He said its the only competitive event in high school where your best chance of winning involves going home and reading a book. These outstanding young people were tested based on their knowledge and scholastic skills in fine art, music, history, economics, mathematics and literature. It is with great pride that I salute the St. Pius decathlon team and their accomplishments. Congratulations to team members Caleb Benton, Nicholas Jaramillo, Stephanie Piegzik, Dennis Carmody, Mark Mulder, Matt Spurgeon, Louis Rivera, Ben Sachs, Jesse Vigil and their coach James Penn. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my fellow Senators an extraordinary exchange that occurred last week in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee when they were conducting a hearing under your chairmanship regarding the year 2000 budget for the Department of Interior. As some of you here may know, Secretary Babbitt and I, while both being from adjacent Western States, have not agreed on a lot of land management, water, and endangered species issues affecting the West. However, last Thursday a most unusual and enlightening thing took place. We both agreed that, regarding the impact of the Endangered Species Act on desert States like New Mexico, the current implementation of the law does not work. I ask unanimous consent Secretary Babbitt's testimony be printed in the Record. It is not yet an official record because the entire transcript has not been completed, but it is a literal translation of what he said that day.

Mr. DOMENICI. Secretary Babbitt's testimony could open the door to some changes in the Endangered Species Act and may permit all parties to work together. I am submitting, as I indicated, this unedited transcript from the hearing for the Record. The Secretary's remarks are very significant because they acknowledge that this law, however well intentioned, is not working as it should. I hope we can begin serious work on improving the Endangered Species Act, certainly as it applies to dry States where water is very much in demand and where we have an imposition on those waters by the Endangered Species Act as it is currently being implemented. Just last month I indicated that people and people's needs should come before the minnow, which is an endangered species in this particular Rio Grande river valley. I wrote a letter to editors of papers in our State, which appeared in multiple newspapers around New Mexico, saying it is now time to face the devastating impacts of laws such as the Endangered Species Act on people in a desert State like New Mexico, particularly in the area of water. I got some real arguments and some flak for writing that letter, but I also got some very enlightened commentary on the problems facing an arid State, and I am pleasantly surprised to find that Secretary Babbitt has contributed to the debate in a very constructive way. New Mexico, my home State, is very dry. I have found that people within the beltway and in eastern America are unaware of the critical need for water in the West. With the lack of snow pack and precipitation in our State this year, we are facing a severe drought this summer. In fact, parts of the Rio Grande River, the largest river in our State, which runs from north to south and through the city of Albuquerque and many other communities, which has historically gone dry at times--this river is already drying up, even this early in the season. My discussion with Secretary Babbitt was extremely timely, since my office received a call this past weekend from the Fish and Wildlife representatives saying they were out trying to find out what was happening to the endangered silvery minnow in the dry stretches of the river. You see, the traditional tension among water users is not only exacerbated by litigation regarding the needs of the endangered silvery minnow, but also obviously exacerbated by all conflicting water needs when you are in a drought period. In a lawsuit filed by the Forest Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife, a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordered an immediate critical habitat designation for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. The practical effect of this determination is the fish may get too much of the limited water in the river and some human users may not get any. A Federal district judge in New Mexico allowed a few more months for the designation, but the lawsuit only dramatizes the growing conflict between the Federal Endangered Species Act and water for Rio Grande users. Secretary Babbitt agreed. I asked the Secretary whether the Interior Department had sufficient data to determine the true water needs to sustain the silvery minnow in the Rio Grande River in New Mexico or to make an accurate economic and social assessment of the critical habitat designation on existing water rights owners. In States like New Mexico, people actually own a proportionate share of the water in a river basin. All of those owners and their rights are predicated upon State law, which says if you put water to a beneficial use and continue to use it over time, you own the water rights that you have moved off the river and used. From the time you first applied water to beneficial use, you become a priority owner of the water as of that time. Secretary Babbitt replied that his Department does not have sufficient information, but it has no choice but to act because of Federal court orders. Secretary Babbitt stated that the Endangered Species Act does not work. He hoped that it could be modified to prevent court-ordered, unscientific, premature determinations. The courts need to give the Interior Department time to gather the data to develop a workable plan for habitat designation. He does not have that data necessary to make a valid, critical habitat designation, and the courts, in trying to follow the act, are not giving him the necessary time. He will be forced to proceed, perhaps, with declaring a habitat. He also said he felt that it will not be productive and will be very inflammatory. Litigation has only inflamed passions on both sides of this debate. In addition to the critical habitat litigation, a recent notice of intent to sue by the Forest Guardians and others threatens to force the release of stored water in any of four New Mexico reservoirs to ``maintain the riparian habitat necessary for the survival'' of two endangered species. I am concerned about water necessary for the survival of New Mexicans, their well-being and way of life. I can only hope that the potential needs of this silvery minnow will not drain reservoirs which Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and many others depend on for their water. I do believe that something is terribly wrong when people who own rights to water have to forego usage or face penalties for ``taking'' of a species without knowing what amount of water is needed for that endangered species. Incidentally, Mr. President, I grew up in Albuquerque, and I lived within about eight city blocks of this Rio Grande River. I can tell you, as anyone who has lived in New Mexico for very long can assert, that river ran dry plenty of times. Historical data collected before the irrigation projects or large population increases along the river showed it dried up consistently in certain places. I am no biologist, but that minnow survived. I can assure you that the river water did not run down the entire length of the river from north to south, which is what some say we must do now for the survival of the silvery minnow. Mr. President, it really is upsetting when I understand that some data available indicates that the minnow ``needs'' more water than the Rio Grande can provide, even without consideration of the needs of human users. How can critical habitat be designated without the consideration of all users and their needs along the river, especially if they have property rights and own the water? Some irrigators may have to take their toothbrushes to work because they might be thrown in jail due to a ``take'' of fish that they have shared the wet and dry times with for many years. I care about including the silvery minnow. I care about making sure we try our best to save the silvery minnow. I support the intent of the Endangered Species Act. I actually was here to vote in favor of it, and I did. Today, I agree with Secretary Babbitt that it is broken and does not work. I do not think the problem is necessarily what we designed in the legislation, but I think the court interpretations have made it unworkable. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I know the mention of modifying the Endangered Species Act brings howls and scowls from some quarters, but I say to you today that it can and it must be improved. I am willing to work with my fellow Senators and the administration and those surrounding this issue on all sides to try to find some solutions to this problem, both nationally and for my State of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Nickles for developing this legislation. Simply stated, it stands for the proposition that there has never been, is not now, nor ever shall be a ``duty to market.'' If you read a federal oil and gas lease there is no mention of a duty to market. It has been Mineral Management Services' (MMS) position that the duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. And this legislation says that MMS is wrong. Let me back up, and explain the issue and why this legislation is needed. Oil and gas producers doing business on federal leases pay royalites to the federal government based on ``fair market value.'' Under the Clinton Administration, this is easier said than done. One of the long standing disputes between the Congress and the Mineral Management Service (MMS) has been the development of workable oil royalty valuation regulations that can articulate just exactly what fair market value is. Cynthia Quarterman, the former director of the MMs, set out the Interior Department's position that fair market value includes a ``duty to market the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the lessor,'' but without the federal government paying its share of the costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs and they are significant. MMS calls it a duty to market, I call it federal government mooching. This bill states Congressional intent: No duty to market, no federal government mooching. And let me be clear, whether there is a duty to market is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress. It is not the job of lawyers at the MMS to raise the Congressionally set royality rate through the back door. And, the so-called ``duty to market'' is a back door royalty increase--make no mistake about it. The MMS has been unable to develop workable royalty valuation rules and Congress has had to impose a moratorium on these regulations. The core issue has been duty to market. For this reason, I hope the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will act expeditiously on this legislation. In this period of hard economic times for the oil and gas industry, the oil royalty valuation issue should be resolved with certainty, fairness and without a hidden royalty rate increase.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to reimburse U.S. military personnel for costs incurred due to cancellation of travel plans. This bill would authorize DoD to reimburse the men and women involved in Kosovo operations in any instance where they are forced to pay a fee to the airlines for changes in travel plans or purchased non-refundable tickets. In those instances where military personnel are recalled from leave or forced to cancel their leave plans due to the current crisis in Kosovo, the Defense Department is not authorized to reimburse them for costs incurred to change or cancel their personal travel plans. Military legal offices only pay the claims that Congress has authorized them to pay through legislation. Currently, DoD is only authorized to pay very specific claims. These claims usually involve damage to government property. Personal property is only covered if the damage or loss is related to official duty. There is no statutory authority to reimburse a member who incurs additional costs related to their leave, even if these costs are a direct result of performing their duty as members of the U.S. military. I find this situation preposterous. These men and women are being asked to cover expenses incurred through no fault of their own. In response to their commitment to an international security crisis, we tell them to foot the bill for any vacation plans they might have had. In light of earlier legislation we passed this year to signal to our military personnel that Congress will not short-change them for their service to this country, this measure offers one additional token of our appreciation and pride. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Nickles for developing this legislation. Simply stated, it stands for the proposition that there has never been, is not now, nor ever shall be a ``duty to market.'' If you read a federal oil and gas lease there is no mention of a duty to market. It has been Mineral Management Services' (MMS) position that the duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. And this legislation says that MMS is wrong. Let me back up, and explain the issue and why this legislation is needed. Oil and gas producers doing business on federal leases pay royalites to the federal government based on ``fair market value.'' Under the Clinton Administration, this is easier said than done. One of the long standing disputes between the Congress and the Mineral Management Service (MMS) has been the development of workable oil royalty valuation regulations that can articulate just exactly what fair market value is. Cynthia Quarterman, the former director of the MMs, set out the Interior Department's position that fair market value includes a ``duty to market the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and the lessor,'' but without the federal government paying its share of the costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs and they are significant. MMS calls it a duty to market, I call it federal government mooching. This bill states Congressional intent: No duty to market, no federal government mooching. And let me be clear, whether there is a duty to market is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress. It is not the job of lawyers at the MMS to raise the Congressionally set royality rate through the back door. And, the so-called ``duty to market'' is a back door royalty increase--make no mistake about it. The MMS has been unable to develop workable royalty valuation rules and Congress has had to impose a moratorium on these regulations. The core issue has been duty to market. For this reason, I hope the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will act expeditiously on this legislation. In this period of hard economic times for the oil and gas industry, the oil royalty valuation issue should be resolved with certainty, fairness and without a hidden royalty rate increase.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to reimburse U.S. military personnel for costs incurred due to cancellation of travel plans. This bill would authorize DoD to reimburse the men and women involved in Kosovo operations in any instance where they are forced to pay a fee to the airlines for changes in travel plans or purchased non-refundable tickets. In those instances where military personnel are recalled from leave or forced to cancel their leave plans due to the current crisis in Kosovo, the Defense Department is not authorized to reimburse them for costs incurred to change or cancel their personal travel plans. Military legal offices only pay the claims that Congress has authorized them to pay through legislation. Currently, DoD is only authorized to pay very specific claims. These claims usually involve damage to government property. Personal property is only covered if the damage or loss is related to official duty. There is no statutory authority to reimburse a member who incurs additional costs related to their leave, even if these costs are a direct result of performing their duty as members of the U.S. military. I find this situation preposterous. These men and women are being asked to cover expenses incurred through no fault of their own. In response to their commitment to an international security crisis, we tell them to foot the bill for any vacation plans they might have had. In light of earlier legislation we passed this year to signal to our military personnel that Congress will not short-change them for their service to this country, this measure offers one additional token of our appreciation and pride. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. And then we vote, is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, me thinks they doth protest too much. That is my paraphrasing of what some great writer said applying it in the singular. I am applying it in the plural. First of all, I recall vividly my very good friend and one-time chairman of the Budget Committee coming to the floor of the Senate with a big sign that said: ``Quit embezzling Social Security money.'' In fact, he said embezzlement is what is happening when we use their trust fund money for Government. Isn't it interesting that there are many Senators who at least feel that way enough to talk about it as embezzlement or stealing money from the senior citizens? Today, the seniors ought to ask: If it is embezzlement, what are you all going to do to prevent the embezzlement from continuing? The answer is going to be: Little or nothing, because whatever you try to do that is really serious and makes it hard to embezzle, they have some reason on that side of the aisle for not doing it. If you think this Senator, who has listened attentively and asked his staff to summarize the arguments on that side, is not frustrated when he hears, first, that a financial crisis will occur--let me tell you, the seniors think a financial crisis has already occurred because we are taking their money and spending it for Government. Secretary Rubin, for whom I have the highest respect, who does not want to tie the future debt limit of the United States to whether or not you use this Social Security trust fund, has written a letter and, essentially, the letter says he needs more flexibility because the money does not come in every month at the same level. We gave him the flexibility. Read the statute before you. If Secretary Rubin is worried about that, we gave him the flexibility. Now he raises a new argument: We may not be able to pay Social Security beneficiaries--an absurd argument. But we gave him the authority in this statute. We said if that the Secretary should give payments of Social Security checks priority. We thought we clearly took care of the most significant problem and concern of the Secretary of the Treasury. Then we hear: You have done nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security. Of course, we haven't. We said don't touch their fund until you have a reform package that helps with the solvency of Social Security, and if you have that, you can use it for that. Why wouldn't the senior citizens like that? Do they want us to just leave it there or they want us to use it in case we need it for Social Security reform or transition? Of course, that is an argument in favor of this statute, not against it. Then we were accused of perhaps putting Medicare in this Social Security trust fund. That was last week. It should just be for Social Security. Right? That was the big argument. We made it just for Social Security. Now what is the argument? You did not take care of Medicare. This money does not belong to Medicare. This money belongs to Social Security. If you want to take care of Medicare, take care of it another way. Do not use the Social Security money for Medicare. Last week, the Democrats were saying that lockbox is not going to be good because you might be able to use the money for Medicare. We agreed with them. We did not put it in this statute. Now we are not doing enough for Medicare. Then we are accused of making this Government live on too rigid a budget for the appetite for spending or tax cuts. We are being accused of tying the hands too tightly. What do we do? We say, OK, we want to be reasonable about this. If we have a recession for two quarters, then this does not apply. Who would want this to apply in the middle of a recession if you needed money for unemployment compensation? Of course, you would not want it to. If you needed to do something to help the economy come up so the Social Security program would be helped by recovery and prosperity, who would object to that? Put that alongside of having no lockbox so you could use it for anything, like the President wanted to in his budget. It is amazing. The President wants to spend $158 billion of this trust fund for just programs, not emergencies, not a war, just for programs to expand on the Government. You can count on it, seniors. You cannot do that if this lockbox is put in effect. You will have to find the money in other program cuts or do something else, but you could not use it. We also said, if there is a war, if there is an emergency with reference to the defense of our country, you could use it, but not for ordinary expenditures of Government. I remind everyone, this is a lot of money, $1.8 trillion going in this trust fund over a decade which belongs to the seniors and takes down our national debt while it sits there waiting for us to use it for Social Security purposes only. Now we have somebody arguing it may be some new Social Security program that just Republicans want that you would use it for. That is kind of preposterous. When you have a reform Social Security program, it is going to have to clear both Houses of Congress and be signed by a President. It is obviously going to be a good program. Seniors are going to be watching it. But that is what we think this money ought too be used for. As I view it, everybody on both sides of the aisle and the White House talk about not using this trust fund for anything but Social Security. I worked very hard to find a way that will clearly say: You can't do it; you can't spend it; you need 60 votes, and you are going to have to increase the debt limit in order to spend this money. I thought that was something everybody would like. Frankly, I thought those running across America saying, ``We want to take care of Social Security,'' would not be for this. Do you know what I think? I think it is just too tight a lockbox. It is not a loose lockbox like they are talking about. It is too tight. You are not going to be able to embezzle from it anymore. You are not going to be able to rob from it anymore. You are not going to be able-- if you do not think it was embezzlement or robbery; if you just think we were spending the money--you are not going to be able to spend the money anymore. What is wrong with that? I believe that is exactly what we ought to do. Frankly, I anxiously await the vote. I do not believe we will get cloture, but everybody knows by not giving us cloture, the Democratic side of this Senate is clearly saying: We want to make sure you cannot spend the money, but don't make too sure that we can't spend the money; don't make it too certain that we can't spend the money; just leave a little bit open there so in case we need it, we can spend it, because we would like some new programs or we would like to cut taxes. Actually, this applies to tax cuts, too. You cannot use it for tax cuts because it says in there what it can be used for and nothing else. I thank everyone for the debate. It has probably been a healthy one. In particular, I thank Senator Abraham, a valid member and respected member of our Budget Committee. He is the principal sponsor of this proposal. I think he has carried the load admirably on the floor, and I thank him for his efforts. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI. Would Senator Lautenberg like 1 minute of my time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I give the Senator 1 minute of my time.