Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate, it seems to me, proposing a set of rules that would like to gouge for oil bucks, gouge for oil royalties. Let me state for the Senate a couple of facts about oil production in the United States and about the cost of oil that I believe are startling. First of all, about 3 weeks ago--I don't know what the exact measurement is today--one of my staff members drew some comparisons in terms of what oil is worth today, what gasoline is worth today for our automobiles and for our Nation. If you go to a supermarket, I say to my friend from Illinois, or if your wife does, and she buys bottled water, she will pay more for a gallon of bottled water than Americans are paying for gasoline for their cars. That is good economics for America, but it is bad economics for America's oil independents, for America's independent producers. Because, just as that truism indicates that gasoline and oil producers have been at an all-time low for the last 5, 6 or 7 years, oil production is going down in the United States. Many independents who have been stalwarts are literally saying they do not know if they can make their bank payments for 1 additional month. Here we come to the floor with an amendment that is saying, let the regulators impose new regulations, and we sing the praises--at least the Senator from California does--that it is going to get more money out of the oil companies. That sounds wonderful. In fact, it is kind of alleged here this morning that, you know, they--these oil companies-- are just taking money out of somebody's purse so we ought to go after them like we would go after somebody who took a purse away from somebody. Mr. President, if you are going to take more money from the oil producers of this country--and we are already becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil, and the price of oil is going down and down-- I ask you, won't you in about 3 or 4 or 5 years get less by way of oil royalties than you are getting today by shutting off American production and causing some more of them to get closed? Where will the royalty come from as we produce less oil, rather than more? So whether it is $60 million, $70 million, $80 million or $100 million that allegedly will come in, that is not the test of whether the rules are fair. If we imposed those kinds of regulations on any industry we regulated, could we stand up and say we just got $50 million from the patent applicants of the United States because we just increased the fee? But you have to ask, what is fair, what is right, what is just, not just are the regulators right because they picked up more money. Before we are finished, we will go through a litany of arbitrary, confusing regulations that they intend to pursue. They are just looking for a little window--I can tell you these regulators are--because there is a moratorium right now. They are hoping against hope that they will get an 8- or 10-day window when there is no moratorium so they can slap on these. I want to tell them here and now that they are going to have a hard time doing that, because I believe we will prevail today, and I believe we will make sure that any bill that goes to the President for signature is going to have this on it. Having said that, I reserve the remainder of my time, excepting I would yield whatever amount of time that Senator Breaux from Louisiana desires. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Breaux from Louisiana as much time as he desires. Before I do that, I just want to make an observation. I just read a most authentic history of Theodore Roosevelt, and my observation to the Senator from Illinois is he wouldn't take this case so he wouldn't be down here arguing on anything because he would look at the facts, and he would say I don't want to be on the wrong side of the facts. He wouldn't be down here anti-anything. He would leave the argument to somebody else. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, may I ask a parliamentary question, please?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time has been used by each side?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator if she will yield for 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time does Senator Boxer have and how much time do I have?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 1998 is a very special year for celebrating Hispanic roots in New Mexico. This year we are commemorating the 400th anniversary of the first permanent Settlement in the Southwest, which took place in the Espanola Valley near San Juan Pueblo of New Mexico in 1598. Dozens of meaningful and beautiful events have already been held in honor of this anniversary. I participated in a particularly stirring event at the San Gabriel Chapel in Espanola last spring. The Spanish Mayor of Espanola, Richard Lucero, organized a very special event with Governor Earl Salazar of San Juan Pueblo and Governor Walter Dasheno of Santa Clara Pueblo to unveil the design for a commemorative stamp featuring the San Gabriel Chapel and the ``Spanish Settlement of the Southwest--1598.'' This is 22 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The Governors and the Mayor exchanged stories about the importance of their respective cultures to each other. All those present were moved by the stories of lasting friendships formed on baseball fields, and marriages between Indians and Hispanics. There were also strong expressions of Hispanic and Indian intent to keep forging their futures together, along with the Anglo culture. I wish those meaningful stories and moments could have been enjoyed first hand by more New Mexicans. In July, I was back in Espanola for annual fiesta and the official first sale of the United States commemorative stamp. This starkly beautiful stamp has done more than I first imagined to bring a new unity to the historic Espanola Valley. Both the Spanish and Indian cultures in this valley have openly expressed and celebrated the positive aspects of bringing two distinct cultures together. The Quarto Centenario, or 400th Anniversary, is a most vital and memorable commemorative year for New Mexicans and for our nation. New Mexico's newspapers are reporting many of the historical details of the early Spanish colonization of the Southwest. Educators and museums are providing many opportunities to revisit our state history through music, dance, and lectures. The Archdiocese of Santa Fe has recently published ``Four Hundred Years of Faith.'' This fascinating review of the critical role of the Catholic Church in shaping the culture of New Mexico is well told and beautifully illustrated, including photographs of all the Catholic Churches in New Mexico. Don Juan de Onate, the original Spanish colonizer, was accompanied by the Sons of St. Francis who walked into northern New Mexico with Onate in 1598. As described in the book from the Archdiocese, ``What resulted from the first struggles was nothing less than the birth of New Mexico culture and Catholicism that can truly be called indigenous to this land. The reconciliation between the Spanish and Indian people produced a faith capable of adapting to different circumstances, as well as being inclusive of the many different peoples already present and those that would follow.'' ``The eminent Pueblo scholar Professor Joe Sando has written of these positive accomplishments. He notes that the Pueblo Indians have fared much better under the Spanish than the Indians on the East Coast of the United States. There are no Indian markets in Boston or New York. Their Indian culture was pretty well destroyed. In New Mexico, Indian culture still flourishes.'' Spain has also been an active participant in the Quarto Centenario. The Vice President of Spain, Francisco Alvarez-Cascos, and the Spanish Ambassador to the United States, Antonio de Oyarzabal, and their delegation visited key Spanish historic sites in New Mexico last spring. This Spanish delegation traveled to Espanola and San Juan Pueblo, where Onate's original expedition established the first Spanish settlement in the Southwest. A powerful reconciliation meeting was held with New Mexico Pueblo Indian leaders at San Juan Pueblo. At this historic meeting, Indian leaders stressed the beneficial aspects of Spanish settlement, like art, agriculture, trading, government, and the introduction of Catholicism. The Indian proclamation, however, also stated that the period of settlement ``brought great suffering and pain'' for both the Pueblo people and the colonizers. This day of reconciliation in late April focused on forging stronger ties between Spain and the Indian pueblos, with the promise of educational, economic development and cultural opportunities. As a follow-up to the promises of this historic reconciliation, hundreds of New Mexicans, are planning to go to Spain in November on a trade and cultural exchange mission. The Spanish Vice President Alvarez-Cascos summarized the day in his remark that, ``We are the sons of our past history, but we are also the fathers of our future.'' He said the two peoples ``want to know each other better to build a new friendship.'' A sacred buffalo dance was performed by Pueblo dancers with men wearing authentic buffalo headdresses. Hundreds of New Mexicans attended this outdoor event on the San Juan Pueblo Plaza in spite of the blustery weather. The spirit of unity and harmony was apparent to all who attended. Thus the original site where Onate met the Ohkay Owingeh Indians, Place of the Strong People, and renamed their home San Juan de los Caballeros (hence, the San Juan Indians), was also the sight of a powerful reconciliation meeting 400 years after Onate proclaimed it the capitol of the Kingdom of New Mexico. The Spanish delegation also visited the site of the future Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As planned, this will be our nation's largest Hispanic cultural center. To build this national and international cultural center, local public and private contributions have been raised, exceeding $20 million. These funds will build an art gallery, museum, restaurant, ballroom, ampitheater, and literary arts center. Federal money of about $18 million will be used to match these local contributions and to build the planned Hispanic Performing Arts Center. Altogether, approximately $40 million will be invested in this new cultural and educational attraction featuring the many aspects of Hispanic culture, history, and arts. We New Mexicans are looking forward to this new showcase for Hispanic art, dance, music, food, and history. I feel a new pride among Hispanics of New Mexico as they prepare to offer this new treasure for the enjoyment of visitors from all over America and the world. In master calendars of New Mexico events for the Cuarto Centenario, over 180 events are listed. These range in purpose from lectures and reenactments to cultural performances, and parades. Prominent New Mexico women in the arts, politics, and education will be featured in ``Nuestra Mujeras'' (Our Women). The ``Dia de La Raza'' (Day of Hispanics) will be a major event in October with events at the University of New Mexico, the new Albuquerque Civic Plaza, and the Albuquerque Museum. When moving events like these are attended and remembered, New Mexico and America will have a better sense of pride in its Spanish roots. As our nation celebrates and acknowledges Hispanic Heritage Month in 1998, I wish to commend the thousands of New Mexicans who have worked so hard to bring their Spanish heritage to the forefront during the Cuarto Centenario--the 400th anniversary of the first permanent Spanish settlement in the Southwest. Americans can be grateful for these fine moments of remembrance, reconciliation, and cultural gems for creating a stronger future.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the junior Senator from Wyoming. I have heretofore on other occasions accepted and supported his various concerns in this area, but I want to share with him and the Senate a situation that perhaps deserves some special consideration for New Mexico, even if it is for a time certain. Let me, as best I can, explain this. First of all, there is a case called the Seminole case, very much understood in Indian country. It pertains to gaming in this manner. The Federal courts have ruled under the Seminole case that the States are immune from suit and that means they can't be sued by an Indian tribe. So we start with that premise. In the State of New Mexico, we have 14 Pueblos and two Apache tribes that have gaming houses and have compacts. But the compacts are very different than anyone else's in the country, for a couple of reasons. First of all, in order to make the compacts valid, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico ruled that the legislature had to be involved in getting this done, not just the Governor. The State of New Mexico, through its legislature, I say to my friend Senator Enzi, came along and imposed, not by way of compact agreement, but just imposed as part of the authority for the Governor to enter into a compact, that each casino owned by the various Indian groups be charged 16 percent on gross slot machine revenues. Obviously, that has not been negotiated, and my friend from Nevada is talking about compacts that are negotiated and that he doesn't know of any situation where they were not negotiated. I am suggesting one where they were not negotiated, but pursuant to a mandate from the legislature that charged them 16 percent gross tax on slot machines. They either took it or left it. The Secretary, I say to the Senator from Wyoming, said, ``I'm not going to sign the pacts, because if I sign them, I am at least implicitly agreeing that the legislature can tax Indian casinos.'' He let the pacts go in under a provision that says if he doesn't sign it within a certain amount of time, it goes into effect anyway. We have compacts with our Indian tribes being assessed 16 percent, and I am not here to ask the U.S. Senate for relief from that, for I don't even know if 16 percent is right or not. All I know is it is a very big piece of money for very small casinos, but we have nothing yet in New Mexico that rivals the smallest, most minute casino in the State of the distinguished Senator from Nevada who just argued in favor of the Enzi amendment. They are very small casinos, with one exception, and even that is not a rival to anything the Senator has in a State that has legalized gaming. Our Indian people would like to contest the 16 percent. Isn't it interesting, the Seminole case, which I just recited, prevents them from going to court, so they can get no relief from what they want to argue is an illegal imposition of this license fee, or at least arbitrary and unreasonable based upon what they are making. There they sit. The point of it is there is at least a hope and an avenue for potentially getting this issue into the courts if you leave the section in the law that Senator Enzi chooses to remove from the law, because it provides for a remediation section and a Secretarial procedure which is being removed, so we will leave them in the status quo with no way to challenge. Frankly, I repeat, I don't know whether their challenge is going to be valid or not, but it seems a little bit unfair that there is no way to challenge it even when a Secretary of the Interior is suggesting that the States didn't have the authority to impose that tax or that much. The Secretary can't do anything about it either, because all he does is sign the pacts or let them go into effect based on the expiration of time. In either case, you will have left the 16 percent license fee, gross fee, in place with no way to challenge it in any court because of the Seminole case. I say to the Senator from Wyoming, he is probably going to win today. I haven't had a chance to explore how we might effect some justice and fairness here, but I do suggest that it is at least right for me to come down here and object, and I believe there might be a way that you can ameliorate New Mexico's problem by exempting them, by leaving the statute that we are concerned with in place for the New Mexico licensed casinos. If you say you don't want it anywhere else, you want to wipe it out because it may have an opportunity to get around the need for compacts, you could at least leave it in effect somehow or another for those in New Mexico who are suffering under the situation which I have just described. Having said that, because of this, obviously I can't vote aye on the amendment. You don't need to worry because I haven't been out lobbying Senators because this is a particular problem, very peculiar and particular to New Mexico. The Indian people think they have a case for just fairness, that they ought to be able to challenge this, and they will never have a chance to challenge it if your amendment wipes out the statute which gives the Secretary some additional power. The Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico has done a great deal of research on this. I ask unanimous consent that their analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 2237, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The Senate bill provides $13.5 billion in budget authority and $8.7 billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of the Interior and related agencies for fiscal year 1999. When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the bill totals $13.5 billion in budget authority and $14.0 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. The subcommittee is below its section 303(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend the full committee and our Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for the hard work on this bill. As a member of the subcommittee, I am especially grateful to our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for his sensitivity to the special needs and concerns of New Mexicans. We live in a State with vast Federal land ownership. Programs within the Interior Department and the Forest Service, especially, which are funded by this bill, have a major impact on the lives of my constituents. As in previous years, it has been a pleasure working with Senator Gorton to craft a bill that is good for both New Mexico and the Nation. I am especially pleased that this bill accommodates additional funding for the New Mexico Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque and the El Camino Real International Heritage Center, as well as for Bandelier, Aztec ruins and Petroglyph national monuments, the Rio Puerco watershed rehabilitation, and the Middle Rio Grande Bosque Research proposal. This bill also provides increased funding for the vanishing treasures initiative and continues support for my Indian diabetes initiative. At a time when we are asking every committee of the Senate to work with tight spending caps to preserve and extend the progress we have made in balancing the budget, the committee has reported to the floor a bill that still provides for an increase in spending for our national parks. Hard choices were made to achieve this increase and I applaud the committee's work in providing this increase. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the First Amendment to the Constitution mandates that Congress shall make no laws which abridge the freedom of speech. The freedom to engage in political speech is the bedrock of our democracy. We may not like what people say when they exercise their First Amendment rights, but this Senator acknowledges that everyone has the right to engage in political speech. This bill places unconstitutional limits on the First Amendment rights of individuals, groups and even unions. The bill creates a rule which virtually prohibits any political ads by individuals, groups and unions which mention specific candidates within 60 days of an election. That would serve to muzzle political speech at the most critical time during a campaign. Not only is this unconstitutional, it is bad policy, because it will only serve to make the media more powerful. I have examined the provisions in this bill very carefully, and even on the slightest chance the Supreme Court would find these provisions constitutional, I ask my fellow Senators: is this good policy? The reason I ask this question is that, in my view, when you muzzle the political speech of individuals and groups, whose voice will then carry the day? In our zeal on both sides of the aisle to address the role of certain entities in our elections, we need to ask ourselves: what will be the consequence of restricting the free speech rights of unions, corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in campaign-related speech? In my mind, by restricting freedom of speech for these groups, we will make the media an even more powerful player in the political process. During the 60 days prior to the election when the so called bright line rule is in effect, the only one who will be able to speak directly about the candidates will be the news media. We all know the saying around Washington: ``you shouldn't pick a fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel.'' Because it enjoys the full protection of the First Amendment, we call the media the Fourth Estate, or the Unofficial Fourth Branch of government. The media are the ``Big Opinion Makers''--they write the editorials, present the news and decide which issues deserve the attention of the American people on a daily basis. We also know that members of the media are only human--and by that I mean that they are opinionated. Their opinion tends to lean in favor of a liberal, Democrat agenda. Recent surveys have shown that close to 90 percent of the media votes for liberal Democrat candidates. What of their independence? What about their role in the election of federal officials? Thomas Jefferson once wrote: There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government, but which rights governments always have sought to invade. Among these are the rights of speaking and publishing our thoughts. This bill is a giant step toward Congress invading the rights of many to engage in political discourse and surrendering those rights to the media. In my view, you can choose McCain/Feingold or you can choose the First Amendment. I choose the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the legislation before the Senate, I rise in strong support of the objectives set forth in this bill. As we all know, this legislation would establish a policy for the U.S. to develop and deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically possible. This system will defend all 50 states against any limited ballistic missile threats. Mr. President, allow me to offer a couple of observations about the changed international and national security environment which directly impact U.S. defense needs. The original impetus for a national missile defense system was the perceived threat from the Soviet Union during the cold war. Although some assume that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the continued thaw in previously frosty relations with Russia have rendered such defensive capabilities unnecessary, this view is naive. I believe that in many respects the threat has actually increased. The increased threat results from several interrelated factors. The collapse of the bipolar geopolitical order defined by U.S.-Soviet confrontation has ushered in multipolar instability. The threats we confront today as a nation are diffuse. Moreover, our potential enemies are abundant in a world where interstate relations are no longer delineated according to membership in one of two ideological camps. I would like to emphasize a further change brought about by changes in the international environment. An additional aspect of the post- cold-war world is the rapid and, in some cases, uncontrollable diffusion of advanced technologies. While earlier non-proliferation efforts relied heavily on stringent export control regimes, heavy reliance on multilateral controls is insufficient to protect U.S. interests. The U.S. continues to maintain a complex and multi-layered system of export controls as a deterrent to would-be proliferators or rogue nations. However, an export control regime is only as strong as its weakest link. Furthermore, rogue nations--such as North Korea--who already possess threatening capabilities, are more than willing to sell their know-how to others. I am aware of others' predictions that ballistic missile capability will not present a threat for more than another decade. I believe, however, that these predictions rely too heavily on the assumption that export controls will keep rogue nations at bay. Without the technology, our potential enemies are presumably impotent. I think this is an overly optimistic view. More than 15 nations already possess short-range ballistic missiles. Many of these same nations are pursuing weapons of mass destruction to accompany these missile capabilities. Several of these same countries are hostile to U.S. interests. Any country with the know-how to launch low-orbit satellites is also capable of achieving long-range delivery of a nuclear or other type of warhead. In contrast to the CIA's earlier prediction, the recently released Rumsfeld Report stated that the threat is only five years away. Moreover, the Rumsfeld Commission determined that the U.S. may not be able to identify the source of a threat, thus having little or no warning. Let me simply offer one concrete example why the Administration's current policy is dangerous. The Administration assumes it will have three years warning of a ballistic missile threat to the U.S. Although U.S. intelligence previously believed that Iran could not field a medium-range missile until 2003, this system was flight-tested in July. According to intelligence sources, the light-weight alloys as well as equipment for testing these Iranian missiles came from Russia. If we assume the predictions about othe5r countries; lack of technological capacities are accurate and postpone implementation of our own defensive capabilities based on these assumptions, the U.S. will be rendered vulnerable while we test the accuracy of these predictions. If these assumptions are proven false, the results would be devastating. This is a risk to U.S. security and a risk to U.S. civilians that I personally am not willing to take. It has been an enduring objective of U.S. defense policy to achieve the capability to defend our country from ballistic missiles, whether the threat be from deliberate, accidental or unauthorized launch. A further reality we confront under changed circumstances is the steady deterioration of Russia's system of command and control over its nuclear warheads. Although the Russian situation presents a potential threat now and deployment is not slated for another several years, no one can assume that the command-and-control elements in any state possessing weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery capability will remain impenetrable and secure. This is one more reason that devising and deploying missile defense makes sense. There has been sufficient debate as to whether this bill is necessary in addition to the Defense Department's three-plus-three program. I believe it is for the following reasons: First, although the three-plus-three program provides for development of national missile defense (NMD) technology, it does not commit to deployment. Under the Administration's program, the U.S. would achieve the means to deploy an NMD system, but would await an imminent threat to do so. Capability that is not deployed opens a window of vulnerability. Certainly the plans of an attack on the U.S. by a hostile nation are not going to include a great deal of advanced warning. By not providing a commitment to deployment, as is the objective of this legislation, we are deliberately creating an indefinite phase of vulnerability. Second, opponents to this legislation firmly believe that by committing to deployment we may end up with an inadequate or faulty system. This bill neither prematurely locks the U.S. into specific technological solutions nor does it freeze our missile defense options. We already are deploying systems, even though the technologies involved continue to evolve. The specific technologies utilized and the defense capabilities achieved are in no way determined by this legislation. Further development and improvements to the system are anticipated, and this legislation allows for that. An additional strategic consideration is that the lack of a U.S. NMD system may actually provide an additional incentive to would-be rogues. If the U.S. implements an NMD system early enough, this may serve as a deterrent to these states. As mentioned, I believe that predictions regarding the technical mediocrity of hostile nations are excessively optimistic. However, I also firmly believe that a national missile defense system undoubtedly raises the bar on the technological capability necessary to inflict damage. Any nation hostile to the U.S. would not only have to achieve long- range capability, but they would also have to be sophisticated enough in their delivery system to defeat a defensive shield. The financial and technical means necessary to accomplish this goal does, indeed, comprise a substantial deterrent. More importantly, a missile defense system places strategic stability on a more reliable and less adversarial foundation. The cold war deterrence relied on vulnerability and threats of retaliation. Missile defenses create a shield of protection, while the maintenance of a reliable stockpile underpins our credibility in threats of retaliation if attacked. Arms reductions can only achieve objectives of stable U.S.-Russian relations if these reductions are accompanied by national missile defense deployment. With such a system in place, possible non- compliance and third party threats are not as pertinent. This would provide the confidence necessary to achieve even greater reductions. Mr. President, based on these concerns about U.S. national security in conjunction with my commitment to disarmament objectives I cosponsored and fully support the legislation before us today. National missile defense will provide the necessary additional security requisite in an unstable and transitional global environment where hostile nations are rapidly amassing threatening and sophisticated weapons capability. The objectives set forth in this legislation achieve that goal.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 513, S. Res. 193.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and statements relating thereto be printed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have just adopted a resolution paying our respects, without any doubt in my mind, to one of the most wonderful women who has worked in the Senate, Angela Raish. She has worked in my office for 21 years. Many hundreds of people in the Senate and many thousands out in my State and around the Nation know her as one of the best women who has ever served in this institution. She served this Senator well, but in doing that, she also has helped literally hundreds of people who none of us are even aware of. We are going to pay tribute to her later in the week with an event here in the Senate, and there will be a lot of people who will come to say thank you to Angela. I wanted to take with us to that event this resolution where the Senate recognized her 21-year effort. The resolution accurately depicts much about her life and what she has accomplished, the many outstanding jobs she has held, and obviously the longest tenure in my office working for the Senate. I thank the Senate for passing this resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 272, which was submitted to the Senate earlier by the leader in my behalf.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through August 31, 1998. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues, which are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 1998 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 84), show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $17.1 billion in budget authority and above the budget resolution by $1.9 billion in outlays. Current level is $1.0 billion below the revenue floor in 1998 and $2.9 billion above the revenue floor over the five years 1998-2002. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $176.4 billion, $2.9 billion above the maximum deficit amount for 1998 of $173.5 billion. Since my last report, dated July 30, 1998, CBO has completed its estimate of the budget authority for the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178). As a result, the current level of budget authority has been reduced by $923 million. This report also incorporates the budget authority, outlay, and revenue impacts of the Homeowners' Protection Act (P.L. 105-216), the Credit Union Membership Access Act (P.L. 105-219), and an Act to establish the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund (P.L. 105-223). The report follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 3, 1998. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report for fiscal year 1998 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 1998 budget and is current through August 31, 1998. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 1998 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 84). This report is submitted under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. Since my last report, dated July 30, 1998, CBO has completed its estimate of the budget authority for the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105- 178). As a result, the current level of budget authority has been reduced by $923 million. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosures.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 2334, the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The Senate bill provides $12.6 billion in budget authority and $4.9 billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of State, export and military assistance, bilateral and multilateral economic assistance, and related agencies for fiscal year 1999. When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the bill totals $12.6 billion in budget authority and $12.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. The subcommittee is below its section 302(B) allocation for budget authority and outlays. Mr. President, I will ask that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I would like to commend the committee for including full funding for the IMF in this bill. The committee and Senator McConnell's leadership on this issue as well as the sanctions task force is a great contribution to this Congress and the American people. Liquidity levels are at historically low levels at the IMF and if we choose not to fund our share of the increase, there will be no increases from the other 181 members of the IMF. According to IMF bylaws, no U.S. participation would guarantee no world participation in the increased funding. The language in this bill and passed by the Senate in the 1998 supplemental also addresses the reforms needed by the IMF, especially addressing the issues of greater transparency and stronger promotion of free trade. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the bill. I ask that the table to which I referred be printed in the Record. The table follows:

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending military construction appropriations conference report provides $8.5 billion in new budget authority and $2.6 billion in new outlays for military construction and family housing programs for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other actions are considered, the outlays for the 1999 program total $9.2 billion. Compared to 1998 appropriations, this bill is $446 million lower in budget authority, and it is $412 million lower in outlays. This legislation provides for construction by the Department of Defense for U.S. military facilities throughout the world, and it provides for family housing for the active forces of each of the U.S. military services. Accordingly, it provides for important readiness and quality of life programs for our service men and women. The bill is within the revised section 302(b) allocation for the Military Construction Subcommittee. I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the Senator from Montana, for bringing this bill to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation. Earlier, because CBO had not adjusted its baseline, prior year military construction outlays had not been revised to reflect Congress' override of President Clinton's line-item veto of 37 fiscal year 1998 projects. This adjustment would have revised prior year outlays upward by $112 million. This $112 million has now been added back to the CBO baseline and CBO's scoring of this legislation. Accordingly, this conference report contains no scorekeeping adjustments. I urge the adoption of the conference report. Mr. President, I ask that a table showing the relationship of the bill to the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation be printed in the Record. The table follows:

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through July 28, 1998. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues, which are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 1998 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 84), show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $16.2 billion in budget authority and above the budget resolution by $1.9 billion in outlays. Current level is $1.0 billion below the revenue floor in 1998 and $3.0 billion above the revenue floor over the five years 1998-2002. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $176.4 billion, $2.9 billion above the maximum deficit amount for 1998 of $173.5 billion. Since my last report, dated October 29, 1997, the Congress has cleared, and the President has signed the following authorization acts: National Defense (P.L. 105-85), Adoption and Safe Families (P.L. 105- 89), Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement (P.L. 105-92), Veterans' Benefits (P.L. 105-114), Food and Drug Modernization (P.L. 105-115), 50 States Commemorative Coin Program (P.L. 105-124), Hispanic Cultural Center (P.L. 105-127), Surface Transportation Extension (P.L. 105-130), Small Business Reauthorization (P.L. 105-135), Acquisition of Real Property for Library of Congress (P.L. 105-144), an act amending Sec. 13031 of COBRA of 1985 (P.L. 105-150), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998, (P.L. 105-180), Agriculture Export Relief Act of 1998 (P.L. 105- 194), and Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform (P.L. 105- 206). The President also signed the following 1998 appropriation bills: Agriculture (P.L. 105-86), Commerce, Justice, State (P.L. 105-119), District of Columbia (P.L. 105-100), Foreign Operations (P.L. 105-118), Interior (P.L. 105-83), Labor, HHS, and Education (P.L. 105-78), and 1998 Emergency Supplementals and Rescissions (P.L. 105-174). In addition, Congress has cleared for the President's signature the Homeowners Protection Act (S. 318). These actions changed the current level of budget authority, outlays and revenues. In addition, the budget authority and outlay totals established in H. Con. Res. 84 have been revised to reflect adjustments made by the Budget Committee for continuing disability reviews, arrearages for international organizations, Federal land acquisitions, the International Monetary Fund (new arrangements to borrow), and the renewal of expiring contracts under section 8 housing assistance. Since my last letter, these changes have increased budget authority and outlays $12,489 million and $50 million, respectively. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 30, 1998. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report for fiscal year 1998 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 1998 budget and is current through July 28, 1998. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions in the 1998 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 84). This report is submitted under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. Since my last report, dated October 28, 1997, the Congress has cleared, and the President has signed the following authorization acts: National Defense (P.L. 105-85), Adoption and Safe Families (P.L. 105-89), Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement (P.L. 105-92), Veterans' Benefits (P.L. 105-114), Food and Drug Modernization (P.L. 105-115), 50 States Commemorative Coin Program (P.L. 105-124), Hispanic Cultural Center (P.L. 105-127), Surface Transportation Extension (P.L. 105-130), Small Business Reauthorization (P.L. 105-135), Acquisition of Real Property for Library of Congress (P.L. 105-144), an act amending Sec. 13031 of COBRA of 1985 (P.L. 105-150), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-180), Agriculture Export Relief Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-194), and Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform (P.L. 105-206). The President also signed the following appropriation bills: Agriculture (P.L. 105-86), Commerce, Justice, State (P.L. 105-119), District of Columbia (P.L. 105-100), Foreign Operations (P.L. 105-118), Interior (P.L. 105-83), Labor, HHS, and Education (P.L. 105-78), and 1998 Emergency Supplementals and Rescissions (P.L. 105-174). In addition, Congress has cleared for the President's signature the Homeowners Protection Act (S. 318). These actions changed the current level of budget authority, outlays and revenues. In addition, the budget authority and outlay totals established in H. Con. Res. 84 have been revised to reflect adjustments made by the Budget Committee for continuing disability reviews, arrearages for international organizations, Federal land acquisitions, the International Monetary Fund (new arrangements to borrow), and the renewal of expiring contracts under section 8 housing assistance. Since my last letter, these changes have increased budget authority and outlays $12,489 million and $50 million, respectively. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosures.