Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I have listened carefully to the arguments of the House Managers and the counter-arguments by the White House counsel during this impeachment trial. I have taken seriously my oath to render impartial justice. While the legal nuances offered by both sides were interesting and essential, I kept thinking as I sat listening that the most obvious and important but unstated question was: What standard of conduct should we insist our President live up to? Only by taking into account this question do I believe that we in the Senate can properly interpret our Founding Fathers' impeachment criteria comprised of ``bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Clearly, the Constitution recognizes that a President may be impeached not only for bribery and treason, but also for other actions that destroy the underlying integrity of the Presidency or the ``equal justice for all'' guarantee of the Judiciary. All reasonable observers admit that the President lied under oath and undertook a substantial and purposeful effort to hide his behavior from others in order to obstruct justice in a legal proceeding. My good friends and Democratic colleagues, Senators Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bob Kerrey, Diane Feinstein, and Robert Byrd, among others, have bluntly acknowledged publically that the President lied, misled, obstructed, and attempted in many ways to thwart justice's impartial course in a civil rights case. The sticking point has been: Does this misbehavior rise to the level of impeachable offenses? I have concluded that President Clinton's actions do, indeed, rise to the level of impeachable offenses that the Founding Fathers envisioned. I am not a Constitutional scholar, as I have told you before. But, more than 200 years ago, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay summed up my feelings about lying under oath and its subversion of the administration of justice and honest government: Independent of the abominable insult which Perjury offers to the divine Being, There is no Crime more pernicious to Society. It discolours and poisons the Streams of Justice, and by substituting Falsehood for Truth, saps the Foundations of personal and public rights. . . . Testimony is given under solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable Rights would become insecure. Lying under oath is an ``insult to the divine Being . . . It discolours and poisons the Streams of Justice . . . and . . . saps the Foundations of personal and public Rights.'' How can anyone, after conceding that the President lied under oath and obstructed justice, listen to this quotation and not conclude that this President has committed acts which are clearly serious, which corrupt or subvert the political and government process, and which are plainly wrong to any honorable person or to a good citizen? We must start by saying that this trial has never been about the President's private sex acts, as tawdry as they may have been. This trial has been about his failure to properly discharge his public responsibility. The President had a choice to make during this entire, lamentable episode. At a number of critical junctures, he had a choice either to tell the truth or to lie, first in the civil rights case, before the grand jury and on national television. Each time he chose to lie. He made that fateful choice. Truthfulness is the first pillar of good character in the Character Counts program of which I have been part of establishing in New Mexico. Many of you in this chamber have joined me in declaring the annual ``Character Counts Weeks.'' This program teaches grade school youngsters throughout America about six pillars of good character. Public and private schools in every corner of my state teach children that character counts; character makes a difference; indeed, character makes all the difference. Guess which one of these pillars comes first? Trustworthiness. Trustworthiness. So what do I say to the children in my state when they ask, ``Didn't the President lie? Doesn't that mean he isn't trustworthy? Then, Senator, why didn't the Senate punish him?'' Let me quote one of the most critical passages from Charles L. Black, Jr., and his handbook on impeachment, one of the seminal works on the impeachment process. He ponders this question: what kinds of non- criminal acts by a President are clearly impeachable? He concludes that ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' are those kinds of offenses which fall into three categories: ``(1) which are extremely serious, (2) which in some way corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process, and (3) which are plainly wrong in themselves to a person of honor, or to a good citizen, regardless of words on the statute books.'' Well, there you have it in my judgment. The President lied under oath in a civil rights case, he lied before a grand jury and he lied on national television to the American people. Regarding Article II, obstruction of justice the House Managers proved to my satisfaction the following facts: (1) The President encouraged Monica Lewinsky to prepare and submit a false affidavit; (2) He encouraged her to tell false and misleading cover stories if she were called to testify in a civil rights lawsuit; (3) He engaged in, encouraged or supported a scheme to conceal his gifts to Monica Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed in the civil rights lawsuit; (4) He intensified and succeeded in an effort to find Monica Lewinsky a job so that she would not testify truthfully in the civil rights lawsuit; (5) He gave a false account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to Betty Currie in order to influence Ms. Currie's expected testimony in the civil rights lawsuit; (6) At his deposition in a Federal civil rights action against him, William Jefferson Clinton allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently called to the attention of the judge by his attorney; (7) He lied to John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, Erskine Bowles and other White House aides regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to influence their expected testimony before the Federal grand jury. In this day and age of public yearning for heroes, we criticize basketball, football and baseball players, and actors and singers who commit crimes or otherwise fail to be ``good role models.'' One of those celebrities said a few years ago that he was only a basketball player, not a role model. He said in essence: ``Want a role model, look to the President.'' Do not underestimate, my friends, the corrupting and cynical signal we will send if we fail to enforce the highest standards of conduct on the most powerful man in the nation. Finally, I want to address a question that my good friend, Senator Byrd, raised over the weekend in a television show. After declaring that the President had lied and obstructed justice, and after concluding these acts were impeachable offenses, Senator Byrd, for whom I have great respect, noted that it was very hard, in his judgment, to impeach a president who enjoyed the public popularity that this President enjoys. Let me respond to that. Popularity is not a defense in an impeachment trial. Indeed, one of our Founding Fathers addressed this issue of popularity directly in the oft-quoted Federalist Papers: ``It takes more than talents of low intrigue and the little arts of popularity'' to be President. And, popularity isn't a pillar of Character Counts. What if a President committed the same acts as those alleged in this trial but he was presiding over a weak economy, a stock market at a three-year low, 12 percent unemployment, 16 percent inflation and a nation worried about their job security and families? I wonder if this would be a straight party line vote. I just wonder. Conversely, I wonder if you had a President who committed one of the impeachable crimes enumerated in the Constitution--bribery or treason. And the facts were obvious and clear: he gave a job to someone in exchange for a $5,000 bribe and the entire episode was on video tape. In this hypothetical, what if this bribery-perpetrating President was very popular but the House, nonetheless, impeached him. It would be the Senate's responsibility to hold a trial. In this example, economy is strong, the country is at peace, everyone's stock market investments are soaring. Would we then interpret the Constitution to provide a popularity defense? Would we create a ``booming economy exception'' to the conviction and removal clause of the Constitution? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Let me repeat, temporary popularity of a President cannot be a legitimate defense against impeachment. The President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, in violation of his oath of office. He lied under oath. He obstructed justice. His behavior was unworthy of the Presidency of the United States. Thus, I sadly conclude that the President is guilty of the charges made against him by the House of Representatives and I will vote to convict him on both counts before the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Kennedy and a group of bipartisan cosponsors to introduce the ``Program for Investment in Micro-Entrepreneurs'' or ``PRIME Act of 1999.'' Starting one's own business long has been viewed as a realization of the American dream. Right now, thousands of creative and hardworking men and women across the country believe that they have a solid idea for building a new business. However, starting a small business takes more than a good idea, hard work, and luck to make it work--many of these men and women need help turning their ideas into a viable business enterprise. These would-be small and micro entrepreneurs face overwhelming obstacles, due in part to the complexity of local, state, and Federal laws, and the difficulty of finding adequate sources of capital. Often, they have no experience dealing with the intricacies of marketing, feasibility studies, and bookkeeping practices. Entrepreneurs usually need basic technical assistance, training, and mentoring to be successful. Under this bill, grants will be available through the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, matched at least 50 percent in non-Federal funds, to help experienced nonprofit organizations provide the assistance these new businesses so urgently require. Fifty percent of these grants will be awarded to applicants serving low-income clients and those serving equally both urban and rural areas. From so many case studies and histories of successful businesses, we know that enthusiastic entrepreneurs can build and sustain their businesses when they have access to critical training and professional technical assistance at the outset of their endeavor. During the past few years, I have had the pleasure of visiting countless new micro-level businesses in my State of New Mexico. A great majority of these businesses received assistance from the WESST Corp. organization, now located in five different sites throughout our State. This organization provides key technical assistance and training, as well as access to low interest revolving loans. But WESST Corp. also goes a step further in providing guidance and information about sound business practices to ensure that the creative ideas of micro- entrepreneurs become sound business endeavors. Micro and small businesses are absolutely critical components of our national economic growth. They often embody the ingenuity and innovation central to the American spirit. Investment in the ideas of these enterprising Americans has long been recognized as a worthwhile endeavor. The Small Business Administration, for example, lends excellent support to entrepreneurs. The PRIME Act will establish a complementary program which enables intermediary organizations to serve more micro-level entrepreneurs who need specialized and hands-on assistance. This is a good investment for the future, and will be rewarded many times over by the creation of businesses that can contribute to the growth of family, local and national economies. We all can recall success stories about business that began with the inspired idea of a single person and eventually grew in to a major global corporation. In every story, the basic tenacity of a businessman, woman, or family allowed the fledgling business overcome initial obstacles and achieve great success. We have no way of knowing how many more such success stories will be told in the future. It is guaranteed, however, that there are thousands of such extraordinary entrepreneurs willing to provide the ideas and hard labor to make it happen, and with a little help, they can realize their dreams. Senator Kennedy and I came up with this concept in legislation we introduced during the 105th Congress, and I understand that the President has made room for it in his budget this year. I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in cosponsoring the PRIME Act again in this Congress. Owning one's own business remains a vital part of the American dream. Whatever we can do to continue this legacy and assist those who want to be self-reliant and successful entrepreneurs is an investment worth making.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just weeks after the calamity hit Central America last year, Senate Majority Leader Lott asked me to lead to bipartisan fact-finding mission to the region. The objective of our trip was to assess Mitch's impact on the region's economy, priorities for U.S. aid, and the potential ramifications of this disaster on future trade with the region. Senator Frist joined me on this trip. His knowledge of health care and medicinal needs was a valuable addition to the trip. We were fortunate also to be joined by three individuals form the Administration: Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the Honorable Harriet Babbitt, Deputy Administrator at USAID, and the Honorable Josh Gotbaum, Office of Management and Budget. I believe this tour was invaluable to all who participated. First, because of what we learned about the region and the devastation caused by Mitch. Second, because it expressed the spirit of bipartisanship that I hope will carry through in our efforts to help Central Americans rebuild and flourish as democratic neighbors. As unlikely as it might sound, the ravages of Hurricane Mitch in Central America may have a silver lining. But the United States and other countries must act quickly and decisively. This is the message we heard form Central Americans themselves, as well as relief workers and American government officials, when we visited that storm-torn region in December. That's also the message I would like to convey to my Senate colleagues. This relative optimism is remarkable. More than 10,000 lives were lost to the storm; 40 percent of the GDP in Nicaragua and Honduras was swept away; 3 million persons in the region now live in temporary shelters or without shelter at all. And, that's in a region with fewer people than the state of California! Yet, even those 1,000 persons we saw crowded into a single small school, those 104 jammed in a cemetery chapel, agreed that a golden moment now exists to move forward in this historically troubled region. The response from the United States already has been both effective and generous, with the first 30 days of the relief efforts exceeding the Berlin airlift. Our 6,000 military personnel have performed heroically, in a relatively unheralded but extraordinary operation. The military and other agencies delivered two thirds of the world's donations already in-region and have helped avoid the disease and starvation that usually takes root within a few weeks following such a calamity. The response from Central American governments has been heartening, too. Don't forget that the United States has worked for more than a quarter of a century to help develop democratic movements in this region. If we fail to move quickly now, elements that oppose democracy could gain a foothold, rendering the sacrifices of money and arms of the past 25 years useless. Thus, we were gratified to hear all important 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.'' As the initial relief phase of the effort comes to a close, and a period of reconstruction and rebuilding begins, the United States faces some tougher decisions about the nature of our assistance. These decisions are not simply whether we help our friends rebuild the bridges, houses, roads and towns they lost. We must also decide how we assist them in rebuilding the young and fragile institutions which are the products of the region's remarkable shift to democracy and functioning, growing economies. Our policy must first offer debt relief under which these governments struggle. Nicaragua's government spends $220 million a year to pay its creditors and Honduras pays $341. Freeing up those resources, even temporarily, is more valuable to them than a simple infusion of cash. Second, we must expeditiously pursue a reasonable option to allow these countries to strength mutually beneficial trade relationships. Relief and reconstruction are meaningless without an expectation of sustaining their benefits through the growth such trade will undoubtedly foster. Third, we must push the European Union to uphold their promise to aid these countries by ending their discrimination against Central American bananas and other agricultural exports in favor to those from their former colonies. Fourth, Central American governments must continue creating incentives for new investment and broader credit availability to the people through their own domestic legislation and regulation. The began on such a path before Mitch, and we must push and assist them in redoubling those efforts. Finally, the need to rebuild the devastated infrastructure of the region cannot be underemphasized. Over 70 percent of the roads in Honduras were washed away. Crops cannot be harvested without roads to carry the produce. Poor water sanitation has brought about a public health nightmare. In addition to the direct assistance, we can offer the technology, financing and expertise at a level which these countries simply do not have at their disposal. In pursuit of these goals, we commend the Administration for acting quickly and for using their authority to reprogram already enacted funds for the relief efforts. However, we must remember that the work is not done when the news cameras move to the next story, and a sustained, bipartisan effort with Congress will be required. This bill builds on the bipartisan necessary to formulate effective assistance to our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. Carinal Obando y Bravo of Nicaragua best summed up for us the hope of the Central American people. Over 30 years they lived through natural disasters, wars, totalitarian governments, and now Mitch. Like before, he said the people will ``rise like a phoenix form the ashes.'' If we are committed and resourceful in that shared goal, we can help guarantee that the mythical image is not simply a myth.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just weeks after the calamity hit Central America last year, Senate Majority Leader Lott asked me to lead to bipartisan fact-finding mission to the region. The objective of our trip was to assess Mitch's impact on the region's economy, priorities for U.S. aid, and the potential ramifications of this disaster on future trade with the region. Senator Frist joined me on this trip. His knowledge of health care and medicinal needs was a valuable addition to the trip. We were fortunate also to be joined by three individuals form the Administration: Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the Honorable Harriet Babbitt, Deputy Administrator at USAID, and the Honorable Josh Gotbaum, Office of Management and Budget. I believe this tour was invaluable to all who participated. First, because of what we learned about the region and the devastation caused by Mitch. Second, because it expressed the spirit of bipartisanship that I hope will carry through in our efforts to help Central Americans rebuild and flourish as democratic neighbors. As unlikely as it might sound, the ravages of Hurricane Mitch in Central America may have a silver lining. But the United States and other countries must act quickly and decisively. This is the message we heard form Central Americans themselves, as well as relief workers and American government officials, when we visited that storm-torn region in December. That's also the message I would like to convey to my Senate colleagues. This relative optimism is remarkable. More than 10,000 lives were lost to the storm; 40 percent of the GDP in Nicaragua and Honduras was swept away; 3 million persons in the region now live in temporary shelters or without shelter at all. And, that's in a region with fewer people than the state of California! Yet, even those 1,000 persons we saw crowded into a single small school, those 104 jammed in a cemetery chapel, agreed that a golden moment now exists to move forward in this historically troubled region. The response from the United States already has been both effective and generous, with the first 30 days of the relief efforts exceeding the Berlin airlift. Our 6,000 military personnel have performed heroically, in a relatively unheralded but extraordinary operation. The military and other agencies delivered two thirds of the world's donations already in-region and have helped avoid the disease and starvation that usually takes root within a few weeks following such a calamity. The response from Central American governments has been heartening, too. Don't forget that the United States has worked for more than a quarter of a century to help develop democratic movements in this region. If we fail to move quickly now, elements that oppose democracy could gain a foothold, rendering the sacrifices of money and arms of the past 25 years useless. Thus, we were gratified to hear all important 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.'' As the initial relief phase of the effort comes to a close, and a period of reconstruction and rebuilding begins, the United States faces some tougher decisions about the nature of our assistance. These decisions are not simply whether we help our friends rebuild the bridges, houses, roads and towns they lost. We must also decide how we assist them in rebuilding the young and fragile institutions which are the products of the region's remarkable shift to democracy and functioning, growing economies. Our policy must first offer debt relief under which these governments struggle. Nicaragua's government spends $220 million a year to pay its creditors and Honduras pays $341. Freeing up those resources, even temporarily, is more valuable to them than a simple infusion of cash. Second, we must expeditiously pursue a reasonable option to allow these countries to strength mutually beneficial trade relationships. Relief and reconstruction are meaningless without an expectation of sustaining their benefits through the growth such trade will undoubtedly foster. Third, we must push the European Union to uphold their promise to aid these countries by ending their discrimination against Central American bananas and other agricultural exports in favor to those from their former colonies. Fourth, Central American governments must continue creating incentives for new investment and broader credit availability to the people through their own domestic legislation and regulation. The began on such a path before Mitch, and we must push and assist them in redoubling those efforts. Finally, the need to rebuild the devastated infrastructure of the region cannot be underemphasized. Over 70 percent of the roads in Honduras were washed away. Crops cannot be harvested without roads to carry the produce. Poor water sanitation has brought about a public health nightmare. In addition to the direct assistance, we can offer the technology, financing and expertise at a level which these countries simply do not have at their disposal. In pursuit of these goals, we commend the Administration for acting quickly and for using their authority to reprogram already enacted funds for the relief efforts. However, we must remember that the work is not done when the news cameras move to the next story, and a sustained, bipartisan effort with Congress will be required. This bill builds on the bipartisan necessary to formulate effective assistance to our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. Carinal Obando y Bravo of Nicaragua best summed up for us the hope of the Central American people. Over 30 years they lived through natural disasters, wars, totalitarian governments, and now Mitch. Like before, he said the people will ``rise like a phoenix form the ashes.'' If we are committed and resourceful in that shared goal, we can help guarantee that the mythical image is not simply a myth.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Coverdell very much. I hope I will not use 10 minutes because there are other Senators here. Let me say to the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Senator Gregg, I was here when he made his remarks. I think the most salient aspect of those remarks--while I agree with almost all of it--the most salient area can be formulated into a question. My question is this: For at least 10 years we have been struggling in this land with commission after commission, study group after study group trying to tell us how we could repair Social Security so that it will be available in the next millennium, because of the terrible impact on that Social Security fund, of the actual demographics of America, and the baby boomers hitting pension time. Now, does it seem logical that after all of that discussion that essentially we don't have to do anything to save Social Security? I asked the question so I can answer it because I believe everybody that is working so hard at it would say the answer is, no; you can't fix Social Security by doing nothing for or to or in any way reform or change it. Now the only thing the President of the United States did in this budget is make a proposal that will never pass the Congress, that a tiny piece of this so-called surplus that belongs to Social Security be invested in the equities market of America by a government-controlled board, who would be subject to all kinds of pressures that would distort the market of America. I don't say that singularly. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has used far stronger words than these: that it won't work, that it will be detrimental. So in a sense, that is the only thing proposed. Now, I am going to lower my voice and say, on the other hand, the President is going to say that he transfers some of the surplus of America to the Social Security fund and it is there and thereby it extends the life. But the Senator has so adequately stated, What is being transferred? In the end, what is being transferred is going to result in debts that have to be paid by somebody, some time, because we have neither enhanced Social Security by investing a significant portion in the equities market, nor have we, in any way, if one seeks to reform it otherwise, made any changes to it except to add to it. Frankly, that is a missed opportunity. I think I might say it is a missed opportunity, perhaps, because of the clamor that we are in today politically. I think last year the President was on the right track. He had meetings and bipartisan seminars and everybody went. They held one in Albuquerque, NM. And forthrightly, the President used to say to people who opposed investing it in the equities market, in as safe a way as possible, Why should the Social Security trust fund yield so much less to the Social Security recipients than investing in other pension plans? He used to ask that question when people were against investing it. What happened, however, as this budget came rolling through under the political turmoil that exists, the President sent us nothing but some words that say we hope we can work together. I hope we can, too, because I think if we did it would be a far different proposal than what is in this budget, which is borderline nothing with reference to Social Security. There are so many other things to talk about, but I am only going to talk about three and do it very quickly. Fellow Republicans, conservatives and moderate conservatives in America, this budget presents the best opportunity for those who think conservatively and Republican and moderately conservative, to present a basic issue that disagrees with the President and those who follow him in the Democratic Party. My friend from Idaho, it is basically this: When you have a very large overpayment by the taxpayers of America, an unexpected tax burden that yields billions of dollars that were unexpected, that we don't need, that are now building up a surplus, what do you do with it? And one approach is to save it. The President says he is being conservative and saving it. But I add to that, saving it so it can be spent. And in some instances, spending it under the President's budget or give it back to the American taxpayers in proportion to how they paid it to us. That falls simply under the rubric of a tax cut. I have explained it as well as I could as to why the time has arrived. Why is this an opportunity to debate a difference? Because if you don't give it back to the taxpayer, no matter what contortions you go through about transferring it to trust accounts with new IOUs and the like, it is available to be spent, and I am not going to be anymore positive about that, other than to ask another question: Does anyone think that that kind of surplus sitting around is going to really stay sitting around, or is it going to do something else? I submit that the President is on a path to showing us already that it is going to be spent. My last one--I will do one additional one--is this: Anybody in this Chamber or across this land who has heard the President speak and has heard his budget presented, answer this question for me: Did the President propose spending some of the surplus which he is going to put into Medicare? Did he propose spending it for prescription drugs? Frankly, I surmise that already, among those who are interested, 95 percent would answer that question that he proposed spending it for prescription drugs. But that would be inconsistent with saving it, right? So, as a matter of fact, if you read his speech attentively and listen to two of his witnesses--OMB and Treasury--it is now obvious that he does not propose to spend any of it for prescription drugs. But isn't it interesting? You put it in the trust fund to make the trust fund more solvent, but then you don't propose that any of it gets spent. That is what is going to happen to the surplus. That is one example--the big surplus, over and above the Social Security surplus. It is going to find niches in this country, special interest groups of all types, small and large, and it is going to be spent. Now, are we undertaxed? Of course not. We would not have this kind of surplus if we were undertaxed. This surplus indicates what a surplus of this size should indicate, which is that tax receipts are very high. In fact, the total tax receipts of the Federal Government are the highest percentage of the gross domestic product that they have been in 50 years. You can pick pieces of the taxpayers and draw different conclusions for different groups. But essentially it is true that the total tax take is going up as a percentage of our gross domestic product, and that sends a signal: It is time to take a look and make sure you don't spend at that level, because then you move America into a high tax country. Our success is not as a high tax country; our success is as a low tax country. That is why we are succeeding over and above other countries in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1999.'' The introduction of this Bill marks a historic opportunity for rural communities to create jobs within the telecommunications industry. The Bill establishes a program to train residents of low income rural areas for employment in telecommunications industry jobs located in those same rural areas. As many of my colleagues know, I have an initiative called ``rural payday'' and I believe this Bill is yet another step in creating jobs for our rural areas. All too often a rural area is characterized by a high number of low income residents and a high unemployment rate. Moreover, our rural areas are often dependent upon a small number of employers or a single industry for employment opportunities. Consequently, when there is a plant closing, a downturn in the economy, or a slowdown in the area's industry the already present problems are only compounded. Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment and talk about New Mexico. While New Mexico may be the 5th largest state by size with its beautiful mountains, desert, and Great Plains and vibrant cities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces it is also a very rural state. The Northwest and Southeast portions of the state are closely tied to the fortunes of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, a community can be dealt a severe blow with the closing or downsizing of an employer or manufacturing plant. I would also like to mention that communities like Clovis and Roswell are already taking steps to lay the foundation for creating jobs through the Call Center Industry. Just recently in Clovis, over a 1,000 people participated in a Career Expo that focused on attracting Call Center companies to the area. As I stated before, all too often rural areas do not possess the resources of more metropolitan areas and can be devastated by a single event or downturn in the economy. The Bill I am introducing today will allow communities, like those I just mentioned, to apply for Federal aid to assist them in taking the next step in attracting telecommunications jobs. The Bill will allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to promote rural employment in the telecommunications industry by providing grants to states with low income rural areas. The program will be a win win proposition for all involved because employers choosing to participate in the project by bringing jobs to the rural area will be assured of a highly skilled workforce. The program will provide residents with intensive services to train them for the new jobs in the telecommunications industry. The intensive services will include customized training and appropriate remedial training, support services and placement of the individual in one of the new jobs created by the program. And that is what this bill is about, providing people with the tools needed to succeed. With these steps we are embarking on the road of providing our rural areas throughout our nation with a vehicle to create jobs. We are creating opportunities and an environment where our citizens can succeed and our communities can be vibrant.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce ``The Rural Employment in Telecommunications Industry Act of 1999.'' The introduction of this Bill marks a historic opportunity for rural communities to create jobs within the telecommunications industry. The Bill establishes a program to train residents of low income rural areas for employment in telecommunications industry jobs located in those same rural areas. As many of my colleagues know, I have an initiative called ``rural payday'' and I believe this Bill is yet another step in creating jobs for our rural areas. All too often a rural area is characterized by a high number of low income residents and a high unemployment rate. Moreover, our rural areas are often dependent upon a small number of employers or a single industry for employment opportunities. Consequently, when there is a plant closing, a downturn in the economy, or a slowdown in the area's industry the already present problems are only compounded. Mr. President, I would also like to take a moment and talk about New Mexico. While New Mexico may be the 5th largest state by size with its beautiful mountains, desert, and Great Plains and vibrant cities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces it is also a very rural state. The Northwest and Southeast portions of the state are closely tied to the fortunes of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, a community can be dealt a severe blow with the closing or downsizing of an employer or manufacturing plant. I would also like to mention that communities like Clovis and Roswell are already taking steps to lay the foundation for creating jobs through the Call Center Industry. Just recently in Clovis, over a 1,000 people participated in a Career Expo that focused on attracting Call Center companies to the area. As I stated before, all too often rural areas do not possess the resources of more metropolitan areas and can be devastated by a single event or downturn in the economy. The Bill I am introducing today will allow communities, like those I just mentioned, to apply for Federal aid to assist them in taking the next step in attracting telecommunications jobs. The Bill will allow the Secretary of Labor to establish a program to promote rural employment in the telecommunications industry by providing grants to states with low income rural areas. The program will be a win win proposition for all involved because employers choosing to participate in the project by bringing jobs to the rural area will be assured of a highly skilled workforce. The program will provide residents with intensive services to train them for the new jobs in the telecommunications industry. The intensive services will include customized training and appropriate remedial training, support services and placement of the individual in one of the new jobs created by the program. And that is what this bill is about, providing people with the tools needed to succeed. With these steps we are embarking on the road of providing our rural areas throughout our nation with a vehicle to create jobs. We are creating opportunities and an environment where our citizens can succeed and our communities can be vibrant.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to see the Federal Research Investment Act introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is one that I've supported throughout its history, because it addresses the health of our nation's science and technology base. Our science and technology base is vital to the nation's future. Any number of studies have confirmed its importance. As one excellent example, the National Innovation Summit, organized by MIT last March with the Council on Competitiveness, confirmed that the integrity of that base is one of the cornerstones to our future economic prosperity. At that Summit, many of the nation's top CEOs emphasized that the nation's climate for innovation is a major determinant of our ability to maintain and advance our high standard of living and strong economy. Advanced technologies are responsible for driving half of our economic growth since World War II, and that growth has developed our economy into the envy of the world. We need to continually refresh our stock of new products and processes that enable good jobs for our citizens in the face of increasing global challenges to all our principal industries. This bill emphasizes a broad range of research targets, from fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre-competitive engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of research maturity is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served by a focus on so- called ``basic'' research that can open new fields, but then leave those fields without resources to develop new ideas to a pre- competitive stage applicable to future commercial products and processes. The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow field, but instead are coming from inter-disciplinary studies that bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where combinations of medical science with many other specialities are critical to the latest health care advances. This new bill has additional features that were critical components of last year's S. 2217. It proposes to utilize the National Academy of Science in developing approaches to evaluation of program and project performance. This should lead to better understanding of how Government Performance Results Act goals and scientific programs can be best coordinated. The new role for the National Academy can help define criteria to guide decisions on continued and future funding. The bill also sets up procedures to use these evaluations to terminate federal programs that are not performing at acceptable levels. The new bill incorporates a set of well-developed principles for federal funding of science and technology. These principles were developed by our Senate Science and Technology Caucus. Those principles, when carefully applied, can lead to better choices among the many opportunities for federal S&T funding. The new bill also incorporates recommendations for independent merit-based review of federal S&T programs, which should further strengthen them. Many aspects of the Federal Research Investment Act support and compliment key points in the study released by Representative Vern Ehlers last year. His study, ``Unlocking our Future,'' will serve as an important focal point for continuing discussions on the critical goal of strengthening our nation's science and technology base. This Federal Research Investment Act continues the goals expressed in S. 1305 last year. That was followed by S. 2217 that proposed a more realistic time scale for achieving this expanded support, added GPRA performance goals, and included language that recognized the importance of the budgets caps. This new bill is very similar to S. 2217. The new Federal Research Investment Act builds and improves on the goals of the previous bills. With this act, we will build stronger federal Science and Technology programs that will underpin our nation's ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st century.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the recently introduced Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. I would like to begin by making an observation about the impact of any potential changes to the managed care system. I would submit that whether a decision relating to healthcare is made by business or the government, the results will always have consequences on the those actually utilizing the system. Let me put that another way, we must always proceed with what the impact of any changes will mean to families and beneficiaries. Thus, when decisions are made, they must be thought out and done so in a responsible manner. And I believe the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights does just that by: holding HMO's accountable, increasing access, improving quality and, expanding choice. At the same time we must work to ensure that: costs are not unnecessarily increased, more Americans are not forced into the ranks of the uninsured and, additional layers of bureaucracy are not placed between patients and their doctors. Let me take just a moment to talk about the state of health care in New Mexico. Health care is close to a $5 billion a year industry in New Mexico. Almost 3,000 physicians practice in the state and overall the industry employs close to 52,000 New Mexicans. Over 600,000 New Mexicans are enrolled in managed care plans. With this in mind, I would like to make several points about New Mexico as a whole, that are relevant to any debate relating to managed care: 78% of New Mexico businesses have 10 or fewer employees and 96% of all businesses have 50 or fewer employees. New Mexico ranks 40th in the nation in terms of the number of people uninsured, a full 25% of the population. The preceding merely emphasizes a point that we must take into consideration and that is the potential impact upon a state and its people. I think everyone would agree that the managed care system is not perfect and we have all heard one or another of those so called HMO horror stories. As a result, there is now a debate going on here and around the country about the need for HMO/Managed Care reform. I also want to take a moment to point out that New Mexico is already at the forefront of HMO/Managed Care Reform. New Mexico has already implemented many of the so called ``patient protections'' like: no gag clauses; a prudent layperson standard for emergency care; direct access to an OB/GYN; choice of providers; access to prescription drugs; confidentiality of medical records and; a grievance and appeals procedure. I think it is important to stop and make a point that I believe is extremely important in light of the large number of small employers and high rate of uninsured not only in New Mexico, but the rest of the country. For every 1% increase in premium costs, 400,000 individuals will lose their health insurance coverage. That is an extremely sobering thought when one realizes that small employers often have the most difficult time providing insurance for their employees because of the already high cost. The Republican bill simply addresses Americans' concerns that their rights be assured in health care coverage, in addition to increasing access to care, improving quality of care, and expanding choice. However, there is one thing the Bill will not do, create a new right to go into the courts and sue managed care companies for unlimited damages. I believe that we on this side of the aisle have adopted a sense about health care and it says: lawyers and lawsuits do not deliver health care. Rather, lawyers and lawsuits generally make health care cost more. I also think that it is very important to note that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) a participant or beneficiary can already sue a managed care company. Let me repeat that, the right to sue a HMO is already available. Now why would we want to create even more lawsuits, when for years we have been attempting to enact tort reform. I know many New Mexicans share in the fears expressed by many Americans about the availability and quality of their health care. That is why I support the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights because it will ensure that patients receive: more affordable care and more choices; greater access to more and better information about health plans, benefits and the doctors that provide their care; and the advantages of a system that holds health plans accountable for medical decisions through a strong internal and external appeals process. The Bill reforms the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, renaming it the Agency for Healthcare Quality Research (AHQR). It will make annual reports on the state of quality and cost of America's health care, support primary care research in underserved rural and urban areas, provide technology assessment, and coordinate federal quality improvement efforts. Furthermore, the Bill includes a provision that will prohibit insurance plans from using predictive genetic information to deny coverage or to set premium rates. Finally, the Bill would provide relief to those New Mexicans and Americans who are self-employed by allowing them to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs. More than 25 million people live in families headed by a self-employed individual (5.1 million of whom are currently uninsured). In closing, I believe that the key to improving our healthcare system and to improving our HMO/Managed Care System is to work together. As I have said, we must find a solution that would most benefit not only New Mexicans, but everyone across our country. However, at the same time we must remember that our decisions cannot affect these same people in an adverse manner.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to see the Federal Research Investment Act introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is one that I've supported throughout its history, because it addresses the health of our nation's science and technology base. Our science and technology base is vital to the nation's future. Any number of studies have confirmed its importance. As one excellent example, the National Innovation Summit, organized by MIT last March with the Council on Competitiveness, confirmed that the integrity of that base is one of the cornerstones to our future economic prosperity. At that Summit, many of the nation's top CEOs emphasized that the nation's climate for innovation is a major determinant of our ability to maintain and advance our high standard of living and strong economy. Advanced technologies are responsible for driving half of our economic growth since World War II, and that growth has developed our economy into the envy of the world. We need to continually refresh our stock of new products and processes that enable good jobs for our citizens in the face of increasing global challenges to all our principal industries. This bill emphasizes a broad range of research targets, from fundamental and frontier exploration, through pre-competitive engineering research. This emphasis on a spectrum of research maturity is absolutely critical. The nation is not well served by a focus on so- called ``basic'' research that can open new fields, but then leave those fields without resources to develop new ideas to a pre- competitive stage applicable to future commercial products and processes. The new bill addresses a spectrum of research fields with its emphasis on expanding S&T funding in many agencies. We need technical advances in many fields simultaneously. In more and more cases, the best new ideas are not flowing from explorations in a single narrow field, but instead are coming from inter-disciplinary studies that bring experts from diverse fields together for fruitful collaboration. This is especially evident in medical and health fields, where combinations of medical science with many other specialities are critical to the latest health care advances. This new bill has additional features that were critical components of last year's S. 2217. It proposes to utilize the National Academy of Science in developing approaches to evaluation of program and project performance. This should lead to better understanding of how Government Performance Results Act goals and scientific programs can be best coordinated. The new role for the National Academy can help define criteria to guide decisions on continued and future funding. The bill also sets up procedures to use these evaluations to terminate federal programs that are not performing at acceptable levels. The new bill incorporates a set of well-developed principles for federal funding of science and technology. These principles were developed by our Senate Science and Technology Caucus. Those principles, when carefully applied, can lead to better choices among the many opportunities for federal S&T funding. The new bill also incorporates recommendations for independent merit-based review of federal S&T programs, which should further strengthen them. Many aspects of the Federal Research Investment Act support and compliment key points in the study released by Representative Vern Ehlers last year. His study, ``Unlocking our Future,'' will serve as an important focal point for continuing discussions on the critical goal of strengthening our nation's science and technology base. This Federal Research Investment Act continues the goals expressed in S. 1305 last year. That was followed by S. 2217 that proposed a more realistic time scale for achieving this expanded support, added GPRA performance goals, and included language that recognized the importance of the budgets caps. This new bill is very similar to S. 2217. The new Federal Research Investment Act builds and improves on the goals of the previous bills. With this act, we will build stronger federal Science and Technology programs that will underpin our nation's ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of the 21st century.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the recently introduced Republican Patients' Bill of Rights. I would like to begin by making an observation about the impact of any potential changes to the managed care system. I would submit that whether a decision relating to healthcare is made by business or the government, the results will always have consequences on the those actually utilizing the system. Let me put that another way, we must always proceed with what the impact of any changes will mean to families and beneficiaries. Thus, when decisions are made, they must be thought out and done so in a responsible manner. And I believe the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights does just that by: holding HMO's accountable, increasing access, improving quality and, expanding choice. At the same time we must work to ensure that: costs are not unnecessarily increased, more Americans are not forced into the ranks of the uninsured and, additional layers of bureaucracy are not placed between patients and their doctors. Let me take just a moment to talk about the state of health care in New Mexico. Health care is close to a $5 billion a year industry in New Mexico. Almost 3,000 physicians practice in the state and overall the industry employs close to 52,000 New Mexicans. Over 600,000 New Mexicans are enrolled in managed care plans. With this in mind, I would like to make several points about New Mexico as a whole, that are relevant to any debate relating to managed care: 78% of New Mexico businesses have 10 or fewer employees and 96% of all businesses have 50 or fewer employees. New Mexico ranks 40th in the nation in terms of the number of people uninsured, a full 25% of the population. The preceding merely emphasizes a point that we must take into consideration and that is the potential impact upon a state and its people. I think everyone would agree that the managed care system is not perfect and we have all heard one or another of those so called HMO horror stories. As a result, there is now a debate going on here and around the country about the need for HMO/Managed Care reform. I also want to take a moment to point out that New Mexico is already at the forefront of HMO/Managed Care Reform. New Mexico has already implemented many of the so called ``patient protections'' like: no gag clauses; a prudent layperson standard for emergency care; direct access to an OB/GYN; choice of providers; access to prescription drugs; confidentiality of medical records and; a grievance and appeals procedure. I think it is important to stop and make a point that I believe is extremely important in light of the large number of small employers and high rate of uninsured not only in New Mexico, but the rest of the country. For every 1% increase in premium costs, 400,000 individuals will lose their health insurance coverage. That is an extremely sobering thought when one realizes that small employers often have the most difficult time providing insurance for their employees because of the already high cost. The Republican bill simply addresses Americans' concerns that their rights be assured in health care coverage, in addition to increasing access to care, improving quality of care, and expanding choice. However, there is one thing the Bill will not do, create a new right to go into the courts and sue managed care companies for unlimited damages. I believe that we on this side of the aisle have adopted a sense about health care and it says: lawyers and lawsuits do not deliver health care. Rather, lawyers and lawsuits generally make health care cost more. I also think that it is very important to note that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) a participant or beneficiary can already sue a managed care company. Let me repeat that, the right to sue a HMO is already available. Now why would we want to create even more lawsuits, when for years we have been attempting to enact tort reform. I know many New Mexicans share in the fears expressed by many Americans about the availability and quality of their health care. That is why I support the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights because it will ensure that patients receive: more affordable care and more choices; greater access to more and better information about health plans, benefits and the doctors that provide their care; and the advantages of a system that holds health plans accountable for medical decisions through a strong internal and external appeals process. The Bill reforms the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, renaming it the Agency for Healthcare Quality Research (AHQR). It will make annual reports on the state of quality and cost of America's health care, support primary care research in underserved rural and urban areas, provide technology assessment, and coordinate federal quality improvement efforts. Furthermore, the Bill includes a provision that will prohibit insurance plans from using predictive genetic information to deny coverage or to set premium rates. Finally, the Bill would provide relief to those New Mexicans and Americans who are self-employed by allowing them to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs. More than 25 million people live in families headed by a self-employed individual (5.1 million of whom are currently uninsured). In closing, I believe that the key to improving our healthcare system and to improving our HMO/Managed Care System is to work together. As I have said, we must find a solution that would most benefit not only New Mexicans, but everyone across our country. However, at the same time we must remember that our decisions cannot affect these same people in an adverse manner.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will provide long-term benefits for the people of Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. In November of 1997, I introduced the Rio Arriba, New Mexico Land Conveyance Act of 1998. The bill would have transferred unwanted federal land and facilities to a community desperately seeking the ability to grow. The bill had bipartisan support, and created a win-win situation. After incorporating suggested changes from the Administration, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported the bill unanimously in May 1998, and the Senate passed S. 1510 on July 17, 1998. Unfortunately, despite the logic and benefit of the legislation, the bill failed to pass the House of Representatives in the waning days of the 105th Congress. I am hoping that this body can promptly pass this needed legislation again, and that the House will agree that this type of transfer is logical and should be quickly passed since it provides facilities and lands for community use while removing unwanted and unused land and facilities from federal ownership. 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. More than seventy percent of Rio Arriba County is in federal ownership. Communities in this area have found themselves unable to grow or find available property necessary to provide local services. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretary of the Interior real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus ranger station for the Carson National Forest to Rio Arriba County. The site is known as the Old Coyote Administrative Site, near the small town of Coyote, New Mexico. The Coyote Station will continue to be used for public purposes for the County, potentially including a community center and a fire substation. Some of the buildings will also be available for the County to use for storage and repair of road maintenance equipment and other County vehicles. Mr. President, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of no further use to them, since they have recently completed construction of a new administrative facility for the Coyote Ranger District. The Forest Service reported to the General Services Administration that the improvements on the site were considered surplus, and would be available for disposal under their administrative procedures. At this particular site, however, the land on which the facilities have been built is withdrawn public domain land, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. I worked closely in the last Congress with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to make this transfer a reality. The Administration is supportive of the legislation and the changes made to the bill at their suggestion. Since neither the Bureau of Land Management nor the Forest Service have any interest in maintaining Federal ownership of this land and the surplus facilities, and Rio Arriba County desperately needs them, passage of this bill is a win-win situation for both the federal government, New Mexico, and the people of Rio Arriba County. I look forward to prompt passage of this legislation again in the Senate, the House's agreement, and Presidential signature as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am again introducing the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act. I, along with Congressman Skeen, have been working to convey tracts of land--paid for by Carlsbad Irrigation District and referred to as ``acquired lands''-- back to the district, during the past several congresses. I introduced this bill in May of 1997 in order to transfer lands back to the rightful owners. This legislation transfers acquired land without affecting operations at the New Mexico state park at Brantley Dam, or the operations and ownership of the dam itself. Furthermore, the bill allows the Carlsbad Irrigation District to utilize proceeds from oil and gas leases on the transferred lands and moves land management responsibilities from the federal government to a local entity. The Carlsbad Irrigation Project is a single-purpose project created in 1905 by the Bureau of Reclamation. The district has had operations and maintenance responsibilities for the irrigation and drainage system since 1932. This legislation directs the Carlsbad Irrigation District to continue to manage the lands as they have been in the past, for the purposes for which the project was constructed. It met all the repayment obligations to the government in 1991, and it's about time we let Carlsbad Irrigation District have what is rightfully theirs. This is a fair and equitable bill that has been developed over years of negotiations. This legislation accomplishes three things: conveys title of acquired lands and facilities to Carlsbad Irrigation District; allows the District to assume management of leases and the benefits of the receipts from these acquired lands; and sets a 180 day deadline for the transfer, establishing a 50-50 cost-sharing standard for carrying out the transfer. This bill passed the Senate near the end of the 105th Congress, but unfortunately did not get through the House of Representatives due to political wrangling at the end of the session. However, this bill has strong bipartisan and administration support, and it is about time that we pass this legislation to provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to accomplish their stated goal of logical transfer such as this. This transfer shifts responsibility from the federal government back to a local entity, and creates opportunity for the district to improve and enhance the management of these lands. I hope that both the Senate and the House of Representatives will act quickly on this legislation so that the Carlsbad Irrigation District will promptly begin getting the benefits for that which they have paid. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill which will help preserve an important part of American history for future generations--Route 66. This legislation, which passed in the Senate at the end of the 105th Congress, will protect the unique cultural resources along the famous Route 66 corridor and authorize the Interior Secretary to provide assistance through the Park Service. Congresswoman Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has reintroduced a companion bill (H.R. 66) in the House of Representatives, and we hope this Congress will act promptly in passing this legislation aiding grassroots efforts to maintain this important part of American culture. The road system of a nation links its people together. Without such a road, the movement of goods and services would be impossible. History is replete with examples of pioneers, such as those that forged the Santa Fe Trail, trying to find passage across this great country. John Steinbeck referred to Route 66 as the ``Mother Road'' in ``The Grapes of Wrath,'' and many in this Chamber may recall traveling across country on this road in their youth. New Mexico added to the aura of Route 66, giving new generations of Americans their first experience of our colorful culture and heritage. Starting in Chicago, Illinois, and winding 2,200 miles across the United States to Santa Monica, California, Route 66 linked the urban centers of the Midwest and West. Services sprung up along the route to provide for travelers crossing the heart of the country. It rolled through eight American states, and in New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants and Gallup. Route 66 allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West. Route 66 symbolized freedom and mobility for an entire generation of Americans in their automobiles. This bill will facilitate greater coordination in federal, state and private efforts to preserve structures and other cultural resources of the historic Route 66 corridor, the 20th Century route equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best ways to preserve, commemorate and interpret Route 66. The study, which was completed in 1995, determined that Route 66 had historic national significance, and the structures along the disappearing asphalt should be preserved. As a result, I introduced a bill last June authorizing the National Park Service to join with federal, state and private efforts to preserve aspects of the historic Route 66 corridor, the nation's most important thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century. The Administration testified in favor of this legislation, with some modifications. We made some good changes to the bill, which passed the Senate, and prompt passage will ensure success of this Park Service program. This legislation authorizes a funding level over 10 years and stresses that we want the federal government to support grassroots efforts to preserve aspects of this historic highway. This bill authorizes the National Park Service to support state, local and private efforts to preserve the Route 66 corridor by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants. The Park Service will also act as a clearing house for communication among federal, state, local, private and American Indian entities interested in the preservation of the Route 66 corridor. As we draw to the close of this century, there is more interest in trying to save Route 66. I once again ask this body to promptly pass this legislation, and sincerely hope the House of Representatives follows suit. The time is now to provide tangible means of assistance to preserve this special part of Americana. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to again introduce important legislation allowing for a transfer of an unwanted piece of federal property to an educational institution which needs it. The Old Jicarilla Site Conveyance Act of 1999 allows for transfer by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior of real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus ranger station to San Juan College. The site is in the Carson National Forest near the village of Gobernador, New Mexico. The Jicarilla Site will continue to be used for public purposes, including educational and recreational purposes of the college. 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. The Forest Service determined that these ten acres are of no further use to them because a new administrative facility has been located in the town of Bloomfield, New Mexico. In fact, the facility has had no occupants for several years, and the Forest Service testified last year that enactment of this bill would ``provide long-term benefits for the people of San Juan County and the students and faculty of San Juan College.'' I am hoping this bill will again move swiftly through this body. Clearly, this legislation deserves prompt approval in the House and signature by the President because it is noncontroversial and the land can readily be put to good use for San Juan College and the area residents. We also need to put this property in the hands of the college so it can protect the area from further deterioration and fire. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me start by saying in the past the President has said the era of big government is over, and last night what he meant was that he was proposing an era of really big government and no tax cuts for the American people for 15 years. Frankly, I don't believe that will sell. I think when the American people understand what the President recommended last night, they will ask: What happened to the surplus that is not needed for Social Security, that we paid to the Government in taxes? Why don't we get some of it back? That is the issue. They should get some of it back. We have underestimated the tax take of this country; thus, we have an excess of taxes in the coffers of the United States. Who paid that money to us? The taxpayers. They should get some or all of it back. I believe the best way to do that is an across-the-board tax cut. I don't write tax laws here, but obviously what we are talking about is equity and fairness; but, in addition, something that is very good for the American economy. The world is in some kind of strange recessionary mood, with whole pieces of it not working. The United States has been immune from that. Now is the time to have a tax cut, and the best kind is across-the-board to make sure that we are adding to the American economy an ingredient that is apt to keep us going at this formidable rate of sustained growth and jobs and prosperity. That means a tax cut now for the American people and for the future prosperity of our country. In addition, I suggest that people ought to look at what the President proposed to do with this surplus. I am amazed. This surplus-- which is taxpayers' money, that is in excess of Social Security--the President has now decided he knows precisely how to use it. Every bit of it is spent, I say to my friend, Senator Thurmond: New programs, new ideas, new needs, even some money for Medicare. And we have never heretofore put general taxpayers' money in Medicare. So he wants to spend it all and the taxpayers will get none of it back. It seems to this Senator that that is a good issue to take to the public, to take to the people of this land. What do you want to do with this surplus? Do you want a bigger Government and spend more of it? Or spend all of it? Or do you want to give some of it back to the taxpayers who work hard in this land to make ends meet and truly, truly are the engines of this growth period we have had? Hard-working Americans caused this to happen. There is higher productivity because they are more skilled and their employers are using new equipment and new technology--higher productivity, more jobs. Surplus means to me that taxpayers should get some benefit. We are going to work very hard to see to it that the people understand it and we have a real opportunity to help them if they will help us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, the distinguished Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and 13 other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial Budget and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the budget and appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of federal programs. Mr. President, our most recent experience with the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 4,000 paged bill contained 8 of the regular appropriations bills, $9 billion in revenue provisions, $21.4 billion in ``emergency'' spending, and 40 miscellaneous funding and authorization provisions. Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two- year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people. Mr. President, moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President Clinton supports this bill. Presidents Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Both of the Senate Leaders support this legislation. And, at the end of last year, 37 Senators wrote our two Senate Leaders calling for quick action to pass legislation to convert the budget and appropriations process to a two-year cycle. The most recent comprehensive studies of the federal government and the Congress have recommended this reform. The Vice President's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget. Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and 13 appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on the 13 appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines. Since 1950 Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for completion of all thirteen individual appropriations bills to fully fund the government. The Congressional Budget Office's recent report on unauthorized appropriations shows that for fiscal year 1999, 118 laws authorizing appropriations have expired. These laws cover over one-third or $102.1 billion of appropriations for non-defense programs. Another 10 laws authorizing non-defense appropriations will expire at the end of fiscal year 1997, representing $10.4 billion more in unauthorized non-defense programs. We have met the statutory deadline to complete a budget resolution only three times since 1974. In 1995, we broke the Senate record for the most roll call votes cast in a day on a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate conducted 39 consecutive roll call votes that day, beginning at 9:29 in the morning and finishing up at 11:59 that night. While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill. I recently asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget. If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget in the authorization, budget, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government. Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would submit a two-year budget and Congress would consider a two-year budget resolution and 13 two-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government agencies. Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does not change these law on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts. Mr. President, the most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. I recently asked CBO to update an analysis of discretionary spending to determine those programs that had unpredictable or volatile funding needs. CBO found that only 4 percent of total discretionary funding fell into this category. Most of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements. Mr. President, in 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of federal programs and activities. Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. We have a total of 34 House and Senate standing authorizing committees and these committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year. We also build on the oversight process by incorporating the new requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 into the biennial budget process. The primary objective of this law is to force the federal government to produce budgets focused on outcomes, not just dollars spent. Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. But, under the current annual budget process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act be made a part of the Record along with a copy of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Budget Enforcement Act of 1999. The time has come to conform our budget laws and procedures to a new fiscal environment. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act was enacted 25 years ago. Amendments to the Act, including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation in 1985, established new enforcement procedures that were further expanded and modified in the 1990 budget agreement. Those laws and procedures have served us well. In combination with a strong economy and robust revenue growth, not only have we balanced the Federal budget, we will shortly produce a surplus even excluding the current balances generated by Social Security program. Laws and procedures developed over the last 25 years for a fiscal environment of deficits, cannot be appropriate for a fiscal environment of surpluses. As an example, while the President a year ago in his State of the Union Address pledged to reserve ``every penny'' of the Social Security surpluses for the reform of that program, he and the Congress did not live up to that pledge last year. In one piece of legislation last fall, we spent $21.4 billion of these surpluses for so-called ``emergencies''. Moreover, in order to get appropriations bills signed into law, we relied on innovative financing mechanisms, a charitable characterization, to meet the spending limits. The fact that we will have difficulty meeting these limits in the coming year is not the fault of the limits that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in 1997, it will be largely due to the reluctance to face the hard choices in appropriations last year. This is not to say we have not accomplished a great deal in recent years. Since 1994, we curbed the rate of growth in spending through the enactment of legislation such as Freedom to Farm, welfare reform, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While I am very proud that we have stemmed the growth rate in federal spending, we did not balance the budget by actually cutting spending. We did stop the explosive and unsustainable rate of growth in spending that begun in the 1960's with the help of the budget laws and amendments of the past 25 years. But even so, it should be clear that the current balanced budget is largely due to an unexpected growth in federal revenues due to our robust economy. Beginning in 1990, we enjoyed the peace dividend with the end of the Cold War. The taxpayer did not see a dollar of that dividend. In 1998, we saw the balanced budget dividend, and we should produce a balanced budget dividend excluding the transactions of the Social Security trust fund in the very near future. It is time for the American taxpayer to collect a dividend. In my view, the current budget process allows us to spend the taxpayer's money more easily than it is to let the American taxpayer keep what he has earned. We will collect more in taxes this year as a percentage of the economy than we have in any year since World War II. We need to find a way to change our budget process in such a manner to stop the erosion on the spending side, while finding a way to return at least something to the American taxpayer. Some will argue that we should abandon all of our budget laws and find a way to cut taxes at any cost. Others will demagogue Social Security and hope it can stop any tax relief and fight any changes to tighten controls on spending. We need to find a way to steer the middle course. We should reduce taxes, but in a way that ensures we set aside the entire Social Security surplus for legislation that restores the long-term solvency of this program. With these objectives in mind, I am introducing today the Budget Enforcement Act of 1999. This bill would: (1) streamline the budget process and enhance the oversight of Federal programs; (2) curb the abuse of emergency spending; (3) set aside and protect the Social Security surplus until we can ensure that Social Security will be there for every generation; (4) make way for tax relief that does not tap Social Security surpluses; (5) provide that we never again incur a government shutdown because of our failure to enact appropriations. Title I contains the text of the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, which I am also introducing as separate legislation today. My remarks on that bill go into some detail on the need for this reform. In my view a biennial appropriations and budget process will streamline the budget process, enhance oversight, and allow Congress to review the budget and federal programs in a more deliberative and efficient manner. Title II would reform the manner in which we treat emergency spending. In 1990, we devised the current system of caps on appropriated spending and the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirement for all other legislation. When we were developing these procedures, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, had the foresight to recognize that we needed an exception for emergency legislation. Since President Clinton made his pledge last January that every penny of the surplus should be reserved for Social Security reform, $27 billion in ``emergency'' spending has come out of the surplus. We could not find $1 dollar out of the budget surplus to return to the American taxpayer, but we found $27 billion of ``emergency'' spending in one year to take out of the surplus for a host of programs, many of which are difficult to classify as an emergency. Senator Byrd was correct in 1990. We need an exception for emergency spending and the bill I introduced today retains that exception. However, this bill says if something is truly an emergency, it should have the support of 60 Senators. Remember, the President said that every penny of the surplus--without exception--should be reserved for Social Security. I feel there should be a means to use a portion of the surplus for emergency spending, but only in extraordinary circumstances. Sixty votes in the Senate is not too much to ask. Title III modifies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements to make clear that on-budget surpluses can be used to offset the cost of legislation. Current law is vague with respect to the application of the pay-as-you- go procedures when there is an on-budget surplus. Title III modifies the law and the Senate rule to make clear that the surpluses generated by Social Security are not available for tax or direct spending legislation. However, the on-budget surplus, the surplus excluding Social Security, would be available for such legislation. Title IV contains Senator McCain's legislation, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act, frequently referred to as an automatic continuing resolution (CR). This title provides that agencies will be automatically funded at the lower of the previous year's level or the level proposed by the President. Title V is designated to end what has been characterized as the ``vote-athon'' on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. This title is very similar to an amendment that Senator Byrd offered to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which was later dropped during conference. The manner in which the Senate currently considers budget resolutions and reconciliation bills is demeaning because of two loopholes in the current law regarding the consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. The first loophole is that the time limitation on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills is for debate only. Senators can continue to offer amendments after the time has expired. This loophole has been exploited in recent years where there is this mad rush in the Senate at the end of the process to vote on amendments--a demeaning process for what is supposed to be the ``world's greatest deliberative body.'' On October 27, 1995, the Senate broke a record by holding 39 consecutive roll call votes on a reconciliation bill, with the first vote beginning at 9:29 in the morning and the last vote ending at 11:59 that night. The second loophole pertains to sense of the Senate amendments on budget resolutions. In the Senate, amendments to budget resolution must be germane. However, sense of the Senate amendments that are in the Budget Committee's jurisdiction are considered germane. By adding the words, ``the funding levels in this resolution assume that'', a Senator can make any sense of the Senate amendment germane. Instead of debating spending, revenue, and debt levels, the Senate now spends most of its time debating non-binding language on budget resolutions. For example, last year's Senate-passed budget resolution contained 65 separate sense of the Senate provisions. Ninety-nine of the 139 pages in that budget resolution were devoted to sense of the Senate provisions, ranging from agricultural trade policy to the Ten Commandments. Title V makes two basic changes to Senate's procedures for consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. First, it provides a procedure similar to post-cloture for the consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. Second, it prohibits the inclusion of sense of the Senate language in budget resolutions and makes any sense of the Senate amendment not germane and subject to a 60 vote point of order under the Budget Act. Mr. President, I have a more detailed description of this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed, with the text of the bill, in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in honor of the distinguished military career of Colonel William L. Berland. Colonel Berland is retiring on November 13, 1998, after completing 27 years of faithful service to his country. He is currently stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico and plans to make New Mexico his new home. We thank the great State of Montana for sending Colonel Berland to the service of this country, and we welcome him as a new New Mexico resident. Most importantly, we thank Colonel Berland for the unselfish service he gave to America and wish him and his wife Debbie the best in their retirement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am proud to pay tribute to one of the most resilient cities in America--Roswell, New Mexico. One- hundred and twenty-five years ago, the Roswell Post Office opened its doors and a town's identity was established. Since that time, the residents of Roswell have displayed a hearty ``can-do'' attitude as they adapted to the constantly evolving economic climate of the region. Roswell has served as an economic and educational hub for southeastern New Mexico. It has been a center for sheep ranching, cattle driving, space exploration, and military aviation. Today, Roswell supports a thriving dairy industry and, because of its warm winters and relaxed pace, it has become a popular retirement destination for senior citizens across the country. Roswell is the site of the New Mexico Military Institute, one of the finest military preparatory academies in the country, and many noteworthy figures such as Pat Garrett, Roy Rogers, Roger Stauback, and Nancy Lopez have called it their home. Roswell has come a long way from its humble beginnings as a supply post. Throughout its history, it has exemplified the feisty optimism so typical of the American spirit. Roswell's 125 years of history and development merits a fitting celebration and recognition. I ask that the article entitled ``Roswell, Then and Now, An Overview'' which appeared in the August 16, 1998 Roswell Daily Record be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Roswell Daily Record, Aug. 16, 1998] Roswell Then and Now: An Overview (By Elvis E. Fleming--City Historian) Roswell's 125th birthday celebration actually commemorates the opening of the Roswell post office Aug. 20, 1873. While the settlement predated the post office by three of four years, there are no records to pin down exactly when the town was actually founded. It was called ``Roswell'' starting in the spring of 1872, but it took a while for the name to catch on. Mescalero Apaches had roamed this area for a long time, but the Pioneer Period in the history of Roswell and Chaves County actually started when the first permanent residents, who were Hispanic farmers and sheep ranchers, came about 1865 to start several area settlements, including Rio Hondo--that part of Roswell that today is called ``Chihuahuita.'' The Anglo cattlemen from Texas soon followed. Charles Goodnight and Oliver Loving blazed the Goodnight-Loving Trail in 1866. John Chisum soon settled down here to become the ``Cattle King of the Pecos.'' By the mid-1870s, he was the largest cattle producer in the United States. The area around the confluence of the Rio Hondo and the Pecos River made an excellent spot for cattlemen to rest their herds. There was no supply post between Seven Rivers and Fort Sumner, so James Patterson built a little adobe trading post in what is now the 400 block of North Main Street. The future Roswell was born when Van C. Smith showed up about 1869 or '70 and enlarged Patterson's trading post into a hotel and built a store nearby to cater to the needs of drovers on the Goodnight-Loving Trail. Smith identified his place with the nearby Hispanic settlement of Rio Hondo. In the spring of 1872, however, he decided he needed a more exact address, so he started calling his place ``Roswell'' after his father. The Roswell post office operated in Smith's store 125 years ago, Aug. 20, 1873, and he was the first postmaster. He was too much of a gambler to develop the town. That job fell to Capt. Joseph C. Lea, ``The Father of Roswell.'' The Lincoln County War was going on about the time Capt. Lea arrived in 1877-78, but he pretty well kept it away from Roswell. The Army sent the now famous ``Buffalo Soldiers'' to protect the town. It was up to another Roswell man, Pat Garrett, to become sheriff of Lincoln County, put an end to the violence and hunt down Billy the Kid. The Developmental Period in Roswell and Chaves County's history dates from around 1890. Chaves County was created in 1889 and organized in 1891, the town of Roswell was incorporated in 1891, and artesian water was discovered in town in 1890. Also, New Mexico Military Institute was established in 1891. Before 1894, Roswell claimed to be farther from a railroad than any other town in the United States. The arrival of the Pecos Valley Railway changed that in 1894, which was an important turning point in the area's history--especially after it was extended to Amarillo in 1899. J.J. Hagerman was the one most responsible for both railroad developments. The impact of the railroad on the economic expansion of the city and county cannot be overstated. Many new settlers arrived, which meant new growth for Roswell--the first bank, the first newspaper, many other new businesses, the first schools and the first churches. The Maturing Period in the history of Roswell and Chaves County started around 1903 when Roswell was reincorporated as a city. Over the next several years, utilities and paved streets were developed. The Carnegie Library and the Roswell Country Club were established. The Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother came to Roswell and started St. Mary's Hospital in 1906. New Mexico finally became a state in 1912. In preparation for that, Chaves County built a new courthouse that was one of the largest buildings in the Southwest and still is one of the most beautiful public buildings in the state. Roswell's first airport was built in 1929, and the first radio station went on the air in 1931--KGFL. Roswell has been connected with several world-class athletes and entertainers. In the 1920s, local rancher/cowboy Bob Crosby became the ``King of the Cowboys'' when he won the Roosevelt Trophy for being world champion rodeo cowboy three years. Local musicians Louise Massey and the Westerners got their start here in 1928 and went on to become big country/western stars. Roy Rogers, the movies ``King of the Cowboys,'' used to hang out here back in the 1930s. His first wife was a 1932 graduate of Roswell High School, Arline Wilkins, whom he married here in 1936. Singer/composer John Denver was born at St. Mary's Hospital in Roswell in 1943. Clear skies and wide open spaces attracted Dr. Robert H. Goddard, the ``Father of Modern Rocketry,'' to Roswell in the 1930s. Here, he made man's first attempts to explore outer space. The Great Depression and the New Deal of the 1030s visited Roswell, and there are a number of monuments to show for it. For example, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) boys built Bottomless Lakes State Park--the first state park in New Mexico. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) built City Hall, Cahoon Park and Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The WPA also built schools, DeBremond Stadium and the Roswell Museum and Art Center. The museum opened in 1937 and has continued to grow. One of its most important collections is the Peter Hurd paintings. Peter Hurd, who was born in Roswell in 1904, was the greatest native son artist of New Mexico. The Military Period in Roswell's history dates from the early 1940s, to 1968, but Roswell has always done its part in our nation's military conflicts. National Guard Battery A, one of the oldest and most honored outfits in the state, had gone to the border back in 1916 when Pancho Villa invaded New Mexico; they also went to France in World War I, and were a major part of the infamous Bataan Death March in the early stages of World War II. Roswell's climate brought the U.S. Army here in the early 1940s to establish the Roswell Army Air Field, which after World War II became the home of the world's only atomic warfare unit, the 509th Bomb Wing and the ``Enola Gay'' B-29 bomber. The Orchard Park prisoner of war camp brought 4,800 Germans, some of whom made life-time friendships here and others came here to live after the war. New Mexico Military Institute in every war has produced a large portion of officers for the military. In July 1947, Lt. Walter Haut of the Roswell Army Air Field told the Roswell Daily Record--and the world--that the Army had captured a flying saucer that crashed on Mac Brazel's ranch near Corona, 75 miles north west of Roswell. Maj. Jesse Marcel saw the wreckage and said it was not of this world, but Gen. Roger Ramey insisted it was only a weather balloon! You couldn't tell that to Glen Dennis and others who not only saw the strange debris, but also saw some little gray bodies. Apparently, the federal government has been covering up the ``Roswell Incident'' story ever since. The International UFO Museum and Research Center is dedicated to learning the truth and has become Roswell's No. 1 tourist attraction. In January 1948, Roswell Army Air Field became Walker Air Force Base, an important link in the Strategic Air Command. In 1960 it was designated as a support base for a squadron of Atlas ICBMs. A dozen missile sites were built in a 25-mile radius of Walker. They were completed by the end of 1962, then deactivated by March 1965. The deactivation of the missile squadron was the first blow to the military economy of Roswell. The main calmaity was the closure of Walker, which took place June 30, 1967. Parts of Roswell became ghost towns as thousands made their exodus. Roswell's economy collapsed. The present Industrial Period started in 1967 with the conversion of Walker Air Force Base into the Roswell Industrial Air Center (RIAC). The former air base has seen the manufacture of many products, from fireworks, lollipops and Levis jeans to mobile homes and city buses--first by Transportation Manufacturing Corps and more recently by NovaBUS. Roswell Community College moved to the RIAC and used many of the former Air Force buildings for expanded vocational and academic-transfer programs, changing its name to Eastern New Mexico University-Roswell. The college added several new buildings over the years, and in the 1980s built a beautiful new campus for the booming school. An auxiliary landing strip several miles south of Walker was converted to civilian use as well, first as a school for retarded boys and as a minimum security prison--Roswell Correctional Center--since 1978. Other major economic developments in Roswell since 1967 include the influx of retirees, attracted by low living costs and warm weather. THe town has a continued a steady and prosperous growth. Many national chains have branches in Roswell, some of which have been around for a long time. Numerous others have come in the 1990s, so that national names are represented among the department stores, fast-food restaurants and motels. The trend toward modernization of business in Roswell was boosted by the opening of the Roswell Mall north of town in the 1980s. Over the years, several locals have achieved national fame on the fields of sport: such as Tom Brookshier, Pete Jaquess, Chick Smith, Nancy Lopez and the 1956 Little League World Champions. Dallas Cowboys football great Roger Staubach played at NMMI for a year in the early 1960s. Roswell, on the 125th birthday of its post office, is a city approaching 50,000 in population. There is no larger city within a radius of about 200 miles, so Roswell serves as a hub for southeast New Mexico. It is still small enough that traffic is not a big problem; and the business, educational, medical, legal, religious, fraternal and industrial communities provide for virtually all the needs of the folks in Roswell and the area. The next 125 years will no doubt see similar developments-- growth, problems, ups and downs--as these years since 1873 have witnessed. But the good folks of Roswell will be proud to live here and enjoy being a part of the Land of Enhancement!

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Alaska for raising this key issue. I can assure the Senator it is my wish that the Department of Energy utilize the already established partnership that created this important program and has management it so well.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes it certainly is. I would note that Secretary of Energy Pena noted and has appreciated the cooperation that has occurred in this area under the current partnership program. In a joint statement signed on March 11 of this year, Secretary Pena and Deputy Minister of Minatom Mr. Ryabev specified those areas in which further scientific research will be necessary; plutonium fuel, neutron physics, and materials. That joint statement was an important indicator of the success and purpose of the gas reactor partnership and future efforts should be consistent with that statement.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it is.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased at the Senate's passage of S. 2117, as amended, which includes a number of legislative items of great interest to my home state of New Mexico. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior real property and improvements at the old Jicarilla Ranger District Station, near the village of Gobernador, New Mexico to San Juan College. It also allows for transfer by the Secretary of the Interior real property and improvements at the old Coyote Ranger District Station, near the small town of Coyote, New Mexico, to Rio Arriba County. An additional provision will amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail, and finally, this bill will convey tracts of land--paid for by Carlsbad Irrigation District and referred to as ``acquired lands''--back to the district, which I have been working to accomplish for several congresses. All of these provisions have bipartisan and administrative support, and all will improve the lives of New Mexicans around the state. Regarding the Jicarilla Ranger District transfer, the Forest Service determined that the ten acres in question are of no further use to them and recently endorsed passage of this bill to provide long-term benefits for the people of San Juan County and the students and faculty of San Juan College in northwest New Mexico. The Coyote Ranger Station in northern New Mexico will also continue to be used for public purposes, including a community center, and a fire substation. Some of the buildings will also be available for Rio Arriba County to use for storage and repair of road maintenance equipment, and other County vehicles. 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. These transfers are logical since they provide facilities and lands for community use while removing unwanted and unused land and facilities from federal ownership. Amending the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail, commemorating the Spanish settlement of the southwest United States is particularly appropriate in this year of the Cuartocentenario. 1998 is the 400th anniversary of the establishment of the first Spanish capital at San Juan Pueblo, the first terminus of the El Camino Real by Don Juan de Onate. We in New Mexico are most proud of this chapter in our Nation's history. This trail represents the migration route into the interior of the continent by Spanish settlers, and I am pleased that our nation will honor this part of its history. Finally, the transfer included which is specific to the Carlsbad project in New Mexico, directs the Carlsbad Irrigation District to continue to manage lands as they have been in the past, for the purposes for which the project was constructed. I believe this is a fair and equitable bill that has been developed over years of negotiations. The Carlsbad Irrigation District has had operations and maintenance responsibilities for the past 66 years. It met all the repayment obligations to the government in 1991, and it's about time we let CID have what is rightfully theirs. This legislation accomplishes three things: conveys title of acquired lands and facilities to Carlsbad Irrigation District; allows the District to assume management of leases and the benefits of the receipts from these acquired lands; and sets a 180 day deadline for the transfer, establishing a 50-50 cost-sharing standard for carrying out the transfer. This legislation is long overdue, is not contentious, and has in fact passed out of the Senate before. I urge prompt passage in the House of Representatives. I want to thank Senator Daschle for his help.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, this resolution on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and myself is the so-called deeming budget resolution. We have cleared this with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Last year this Congress reached an historic agreement with the President. We enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I think those pundits who like to suggest that this Congress has not done anything seem to conveniently forget that the balanced budget agreement was done in this Congress. Nevertheless, that agreement and the implementing legislation--the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997--put in place for 5 years spending limits on appropriated accounts and extended various other fiscal enforcement tools. I have often thought of this legislation as a first step in creating a biennial budgeting and appropriations process. We have operated in the second session of this Congress under those spending caps and applied the discipline of that act to help us secure the first balanced budget in decades. The levels set forth in this Senate resolution reflect the bipartisan balanced budget agreement--updated for the most recent fiscal and economic information provided to us by the Congressional Budget Office and for legislation enacted since the last budget resolution was agreed to. This is similar to the action which the Senate took on April 2 of this year when we passed S. Res. 209 which provided a section 302 allocation to the Committee on Appropriations in advance of completing action on a budget resolution. What we have done today is simply provide committee spending allocations and establish overall aggregate levels of spending and revenues so that we can continue the fiscal discipline inherent in our budget rules--this means we will be able to enforce our section 302 and 311 points of order and our pay-as-you-go rule. I feel this discipline has been critical to our ability to uphold the bipartisan balanced budget agreement and led us to a period of budget surpluses. Thus we should not let the fact that we were unable to complete conference prevent us from going forward with the budget rules which have served us so well in the past. I am hopeful that early in the next Congress we might consummate the 2 year budgeting and appropriations process in statute along with other changes to the Budget Act necessitated by the changed environment of projected budget surpluses. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the allocations of budget authority and outlays under section 302 of the Budget Act for Senate authorizing committees be printed in the Record. The Senate appropriations already received its allocation on April 2 of this year when the Senate adopted S. Res. 209.