Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a ten acre parcel of land, known as the old Jicarilla administrative site, to San Juan College. This legislation will provide long-term benefits for the people of San Juan County, New Mexico, and especially the students and faculty of San Juan College. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretary of Agriculture real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus administrative site of the Carson National Forest to San Juan College. The site is known as the old Jicarilla Ranger District Station, near the village of Gobanador, New Mexico. The Jicarilla Station will continue to be used for public purposes, including educational and recreational purposes of the college. Mr. President, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of no further use to them, since the Jicarilla District Ranger moved into a new administrative facility in the town of Bloomfield, New Mexico. The facility has had no occupants for several years, and it is my understanding that 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. This legislation is patterned after S. 1510, approved by the Senate earlier this month, by which the property and improvements of a similarly abandoned Forest Service facility in New Mexico will be transferred to Rio Arriba County. The administration has indicated its support for the passage of that bill, and I hope that this bill will gain their support, as well. Mr. President, since the Forest Service has no interest in maintaining Federal ownership of this land and the surplus facilities, and San Juan College could put this small tract to good use, this legislation is a win-win situation for the federal government and northwestern New Mexico. I look the Senate's rapid consideration of this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is an article that follows on the tragedy that happened here in Washington when a man, 41 years of age, obviously suffering from a very serious disease called schizophrenia, was off his medication and, because of his disease, did the kind of things that have shocked our country and shocked our Capitol. The story is about four or five people in the United States who have family members with the same disease, schizophrenia, and have suffered the consequences of their relative, son or daughter, being off the medication--because there is a propensity on the part of those with this ailment to not want to be on medication. Sometimes it offends them a bit. Sometimes it causes extreme obesity. Sometimes it causes some muscular jittering. But whatever the case, it is hard to keep them on their medication. I believe we might turn this terrible incident into a constructive response to a very destructive event because, as this article points out, there is little that the parents and relatives can do in their communities to help when they begin to feel the desolation and absolute loneliness when a member of their family, a daughter or son who has this dread disease, decides not to stay on the medication or the medication needs to be changed to be effective. The loneliness is absolutely incredible. As a matter of fact, in this marvelous land of ours, it is fair to say that only in a few places is there any help at all for these people. I don't know how many Americans saw Russell Weston, Sr. and his wife when they met with the press and talked about their son, their son, the 41-year-old who burst through a door here in our Capitol. We all know about the events, and feel great, great sympathy and empathy for the family of the two fallen officers. We have almost been, as a nation, in mourning since that event occurred. And that is as it should be. Mr. President, I am not going to say much more about this, other than to say that I have worked with the mentally ill in this Nation. I have worked hard to get more and more people to recognize that this is a disease and that we ought to cover this disease with insurance just as we cover heart failure. That causes some difficulty. Nonetheless, today I don't rise on that score. I merely rise to say: Maybe, maybe this great land of ours, and maybe this institution called the U.S. Senate, and maybe groups across America that are worried about this, might just see if there is a way we can prevent this from happening, if we could prevent it from happening even a couple of hundred times. We frequently see schizophrenics committing acts of murder and degradation, and we all know why it is happening. As a matter of fact, we can almost say with certainty, I say to my friend, Senator Byrd, that if most of those people were on the right medicine they would not be perpetrating these kinds of acts. I hope we would use this to stimulate our collective thinking on what we might do about it. I don't have the answers. But I have talked to a few Senators. I have talked, in particular, to Dr. Frist, Senator Frist from Tennessee, who concurs with me that there is little help available. For, you see, in the case of Mr. Weston, if they wanted him to be taken care of, they had very few options. They could call the police. I think across America it is pretty obvious, police will come by and they will say, ``This is a medical problem. We can't help you.'' They could take him to a hospital. A normal hospital would say, ``We can't help you.'' They could put him in an institution for a few weeks to try to get him back on board and on the medication, but they had already done that. So this Washington Post article called ``Tears of Blood; For Families of Schizophrenics, a Gunman's Shots Strike at Their Hearts'' is something we should all take cognizance of. I hope by these remarks--and some others in this community, I understand, are interested in this--that we will find a way to start meeting together in groups, trying to figure out what should an American response be? Maybe it is a State response. Maybe it is not a Federal response. But we might be the ones to stimulate some real thinking about a responsibility. In this case, we could really be preventers, we could be preventers of serious, serious acts of violence because that can be prevented. It is just we do not help at the time they need help. And we don't have a system set up to provide such help. I thank the Senator for listening, and, in particular, for giving me a few extra moments this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how many Senators saw an article in the Washington Post today, in section B of the Washington Post, called ``Tears Of Blood.'' I have the article in front of me. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, Senator Rod Grams and I traveled to France to develop a better understanding of policies underpinning the utilization of nuclear energy for about 80 percent of their electricity. We visited several key French facilities, and Senator Fred Thompson joined us after the site visit and participated in several of the high-level meetings with elected and appointed Government officials. Observations from our trip provide some important perspectives for consideration in the United States: Nuclear energy has been implemented in France with strict attention to minimizing environmental consequences. Waste products are reduced at each step in their process. The French nuclear energy system enables them to achieve world-class standards for minimal environmental impact from power generation. They are justifiably proud of their record. Their carbon dioxide emissions per capita are about one-third those in the United States. French reliance on a ``closed fuel cycle'' has enabled recycle and recovery of the energy content of spent fuel while also dramatically reducing the volume and toxicity of waste products below those in the United States with our ``open fuel cycle.'' Transportation and interim storage of spent fuel are done carefully in France, with virtually no negative impacts. Interim storage is essential in implementing their fuel cycle. At each site in France, attention to protection of the environment is outstanding. For example, while the United States left corrosive waste from uranium enrichment in tens of thousands of steel casks at places like Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio, the French have routinely extracted commercial products from the same waste and stored only inert products. The nuclear industry in France is structured around a closed fuel cycle, which recycles much of their spent fuel. This requires reprocessing of the fuel, a step that the U.S. banned in 1977. That decision by President Carter sought to avoid availability of separated plutonium with its proliferation concerns. The French, along with other countries, were equally concerned about proliferation; but they simply ensured careful safeguards on the plutonium and today are seeking to increase their reuse of plutonium to minimize plutonium reserves. Excellent security and international safeguards were obvious in their facilities. When the French reprocess spent fuel, they reuse plutonium in mixed oxide or MOX fuel, consisting of a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides. Their reprocessing allows the plutonium and uranium to be reused and dramatically reduces the toxicity and volume of their waste below the U.S. open cycle. In contrast, we just plan to bury our spent fuel with no attempt to recycle the valuable energy content of the spent fuel or reduce its volume or toxicity. The resulting waste volume from 20 years of a family of four in France is about 2.5 cubic inches, about that of a pack of cards. And after 200 years, the radiotoxicity of their waste is only about 10% of the value of our spent fuel. The French have gone to great lengths to educate their public about nuclear issues, and extensive environmental monitoring information is routinely shared with the citizens from all the activities we saw. Transportation of spent fuel is required in the French system. But the French have never experienced a radioactive spill in any traffic accident. Simple interim storage is routinely used in France, without the political debates we face in the United States over this necessary step towards a credible fuel cycle. A 1991 French law prescribed a 15 year period to assess options for disposition of their final waste products, whereas we precluded our options and focused on a permanent repository with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Under this program, they are actively studying further reductions in the toxicity of their waste. We learned that they would welcome strong collaboration in this field with the U.S. The Accelerator Transmutation of Waste program, funded for the first time in the current Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, is one program they singled our for enhanced cooperation. The French do not justify their closed cycle with economic arguments, instead they point to its sensitivity to environmental issues and the minimal legacy left for future generations. In fact, with uranium prices currently extremely low, the closed cycle may be slightly more expensive than our open cycle, at least in the near term. Partly for that reason, partly because of the large investment required if the U.S. tried to now duplicate the French system, and partly because there are now alternative options to achieve a closed cycle, we do not recommend that the U.S. simply adopt the French closed cycle. New closed cycle options should be considered driven by technological advances in the decades since the French initiated their system. We believe that these new options deserve evaluation here to enable the U.S. to consider the benefits of a closed fuel cycle. Some of these newer options would provide benefits similar to the French system, plus some would avoid proliferation concerns by never separating plutonium. Some of the new nuclear initiatives funded for next year should explore these attractive options. Almost any of these options, however, require interim storage of spent fuel--our trip only adds to the strength of current arguments for prompt implementation of this simple and important step. In summary, there are important lessons from the French system for our use of nuclear energy. In the next session of Congress, we look forward to working with you to improve our system, drawing upon these lessons where appropriate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, Congress recognized domestic violence as a serious threat to the health safety of women in this country. We successfully created vital programs to train the law enforcement and judicial communities to respond to domestic violence, and further supported important intervention programs. In some respects, however, we left the job only partially addressed. We failed to train and support the professionals that face victims of domestic violence on a daily basis: health care professionals and staff. Today, I am pleased that Senator Stevens is joining me in introducing a bill to fill that gap: ``The Prescription for Abuse Act--(Rx for Abuse Act).'' Health care professionals and staff are truly on the front lines of domestic violence work. Nearly four million American women are physically abused each year. While our shelters are always overwhelmed, not all women seek shelter. Not all victims call the police. But eventually, almost all victims seek medical care. Last year, the Department of Justice reported that more than one in three women who sought care in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. And, while the impact on the health care system is immense, few health care settings have intervened in a comprehensive way to identify, treat, and prevent the violence that they see on a daily basis. Of particular interest reported to me by a New Mexico doctor, a significant number of office or emergency room visits are not detected as domestic violence- related because physicians and staff are not trained to properly identify the signs of a battered victim. Domestic violence is repetitive in nature. According to 1993 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in five women victimized by their spouse or ex-spouse reported that they had been a victim of a series of at least three assaults in the prior six months. Unfortunately, the way the system currently works, the bones are set and the cuts stitched, but the patients are seldom asked about their injuries or referred to services that can help them stop the violence. Health care providers, professionals, hospitals, emergency health care staff, physical therapists, and domestic violence organizations need to join forces to find ways to identify, address and document abuse. They need to work together to ensure the confidentiality and safety of victims, and to connect victims to available services. Violence against women takes a tremendous toll on our health care system. Battering is a leading cause of injury to women and each year more than a million women seek medical attention because of it. Women who have been battered or sexually assaulted utilize the health care system at much higher rates than non-abused women, for a variety of health problems, including repeated injuries, stress-related disorders, depression, and other physical and mental illnesses. And battering during pregnancy increases the risk of premature, low birth weight, or stillborn babies. Health care providers and staff are often the first, and only, professionals to see a battered woman's injuries. They are in a unique position to identify abuse before it is reported and to intervene in a way that will result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality caused by violence in the home. In far too many ways to enumerate, domestic violence is a health care issue. Training health care professionals and staff to recognize, intervene, and refer victims to additional assistance is the purpose of this bill. As we are all aware, domestic violence knows no age, educational, economic, or socio-cultural barriers. It is evident in our smallest communities and our largest cities. In the sparsely-populated State of New Mexico, there are 26 domestic violence shelters that served more than 16,000 unduplicated clients last year. There were 11,400 non- resident shelter clients and 5,000 shelter residents, with 77,000 nights of shelter provided in one year alone. This represents a thirty- eight percent increase over a four-year period. The New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the countless professionals who staff the shelters and clinics across the State know the extent and consequences of the horrific problem of domestic violence on children, women, and families. I am proud to say that New Mexico is on the cutting edge of a strategy to begin the process of training health care professionals and staff to become more involved in this critical issue. Last month, a collaborative effort of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the New Mexico Medical Society, and the New Mexico Department of Health, in partnership with the Family Violence Prevention Fund Health Initiative, pulled together teams from 15 hospitals across the State to train health care providers to identify and respond to the needs of domestic violence victims that they treat. Based on the ongoing work in my State, and similar work in Alaska, Senator Stevens and I am introducing a bill to replicate such efforts around the country. The bill establishes three and four-year demonstration grants to strengthen state and local health care systems' responses to domestic violence by building the capacity of health care professionals and staff to identify, address, and prevent domestic violence among their patients. It will give these health care professionals the training, tools, and support they need to confidently address the violence that affects their patients' health. The bill authorizes ten grants up to two million dollars each for statewide teams to develop four-year demonstration programs and ten grants up to $450,000 each for local teams to direct three-year local level demonstrations. Eligible state applicants are state health departments, domestic violence coalitions, or the state medical or health professionals' associations or societies, or other nonprofit or governmental entities that have a history of work on domestic violence. Mr. President, there is no question that early intervention on the part of health professionals can decrease the morbidity and mortality that results from violence in the home. I am pleased to join with Senator Stevens in introducing the ``Rx for Abuse Act,'' and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last night the Senate passed H. Res. 3731. This legislation designates a special auditorium at Sandia National Laboratories as the Steve Schiff Auditorium. Steve spoke in that auditorium on several occasions as part of his long service to the people of the State of New Mexico. I believe we all know, now that we have had a chance to look at Steve Schiff's life and his time in the House, before his unfortunate death from cancer, that he was in all respects a good public servant--he demonstrated integrity of the highest order, deep and fundamental decency, and an acute and open mind. He went about his business quietly but with efficiency. He was great at telling stories, usually about himself. He was a model for all politicians to admire. Mr. President, I wish that we could do something more significant than naming this very, very fine auditorium at Sandia National Laboratories after him. We will have a ceremony when that takes place officially, and the people of his district and our State will join us in a celebration that I hope is a fitting tribute to our deceased colleague. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2395 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do we have a standing order with reference to time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have about four items. I am not sure I can finish them in 5 minutes, but if there is no one here I will ask for an extension of time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to have Senator Harkin as a cosponsor of this amendment. There are two parts to my amendment; both parts have no cost. The first part addresses the 12,000 military families on Food Stamps. For 3 years the Defense Department has refused to take this problem seriously. I first wrote to DoD in 1996; then I was told that this was a problem only because military personnel have decided, and I quote, ``to have a larger family than he/she can afford.'' In other words, it is Defense Department policy to discourage military families and to engineer the size of those families. In 1997, I wrote again to Secretary Cohen because he publicly stated that it was ``not acceptable'' for military personnel to be on Food Stamps. I regret to say that he wrote back saying only that he would ``monitor'' the issue. Last year in the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization bill, Congress mandated a DoD report on potential solutions. The report is now several months late and will not be submitted in the foreseeable future. Congress is getting the bureaucratic stiff-arm from DoD on this issue. It's time to bring that to an end. My amendment will require DoD to propose low cost solutions to this problem, and it requires these proposals as a part of DoD's FY 2000 budget request. Next year. If DoD still refuses to take this problem seriously, I will propose my own solution. If the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee see fit to support me, I'm sure we can be successful. The second part of the amendment will permit us to better understand our growing problems in military family life, morale, and retention. This year, I collected information from each of the services on these issues. Unfortunately, the information I collected confirms my suspicions that the Defense Department has failed to collect data properly. For example: Each service collects data on these issues differently--or not at all--which prevents comparing among the services. This also means that successes and failures to address these problems cannot be identified. Now that everyone agrees that readiness is a serious problem, everyone wants to do something about it. But, because the issues are not fully understood, some of the proposed `'solutions'' may be off the mark. For example, Congress is increasing re-enlistment bonuses for pilots to compete with airline salaries, but there are indications that high airline salaries are not the real problem. We won't really understand the problem until we have better data; only then can we apply effective solutions. The nature of military life has gone through profound change in the last 20 years, but those changes are not fully understood or taken into account in DoD national security decision making. It is not clear how the new prominence of families in military life should--or should not-- be taken into account in making national security decisions. Because of these problems, my amendment requires a special unit in the General Accounting Office to collect and study the data. They will use an Advisory Panel of experts to assist the study and will report back to the Appropriations Committees next year. With these issues better understood, we will be able to apply more effective solutions, and we should be able to make some real improvements in how Congress and DoD address quality of life and family issues. amendment no. 3424 (Purpose: Relating to the conveyance of the remaining Army Reserve property at former Fort Sheridan, Illinois) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. . (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to carry out any conveyance of land at the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois, unless such conveyance is consistent with a regional agreement among the communities and jurisdictions in the vicinity of Fort Sheridan and in accordance with section 2862 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 573). (2) The land referred to in paragraph (1) is a parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon, located at the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois, consisting of approximately 14 acres, and known as the northern Army Reserve enclave area, that is covered by the authority in section 2862 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and has not been conveyed pursuant to that authority as of the date of enactment of this Act. amendment no. 3425 (Purpose: To require a conveyance of certain property at former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire) On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: Sec. 8104. (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, without consideration, to the Town of Newington, New Hampshire, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real property, together with improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 1.3 acres located at former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire, and known as the site of the old Stone School. (b) Exception from Screening Requirement.--The Secretary shall make the conveyance under subsection (a) without regard to the requirement under section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, that the property be screened for further Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.). (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the Secretary. (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interest of the United States. amendment no. 3426 (Purpose: To make available up to $10,000,000 for the Department of Defense share of environmental restoration at Defense Logistics Agency inventory location 429 (Macalloy site) in Charleston, South Carolina On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: Sec. 8104. Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense by this Act, up to $10,000,000 may be available for the Department of Defense share of environmental remediation and restoration activities at Defense Logistics Agency inventory location 429 (Macalloy site) in Charleston, South Carolina. amendment No. 3427 (Purpose: To designate funds for a strategic materials manufacturing project) On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following new general provision: Sec. 8104. Of the funds provided under Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', for Materials and Electronics Technology, $2,000,000 shall be made available only for the Strategic Materials Manufacturing Facility project. amendment no. 3428 (Purpose: To authorize the transportation of American Samoa veterans to Hawaii on Department of Defense aircraft for receipt of veterans medical care in Hawaii.) On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following: Sec. 8104. (a) Chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2641 the following: ``Sec. 2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of Defense aircraft for certain medical care in Hawaii ``(a) Transportation Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may provide transportation on Department of Defense aircraft for the purpose of transporting any veteran specified in subsection (b) between American Samoa and the State of Hawaii if such transportation is required in order to provide hospital care to such veteran as described in that subsection. ``(b) Veterans Eligible for Transport.--A veteran eligible for transport under subsection (a) is any veteran who-- ``(1) resides in and is located in American Samoa; and ``(2) as determined by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, must be transported to the State of Hawaii in order to receive hospital care to which such veteran is entitled under chapter 17 of title 38 in facilities of such Department in the State of Hawaii. ``(c) Administration.--(1) Transportation may be provided to veterans under this section only on a space-available basis. ``(2) A charge may not be imposed on a veteran for transportation provided to the veteran under this section. ``(d) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) The term `veteran' has the meaning given that term in section 101(2) of title 38. ``(2) The term `hospital care' has the meaning given that term in section 1701(5) of title 38.''. (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 157 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2641 the following new item: ``2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of Defense aircraft for certain medical care in Hawaii.''. amendment no. 3429 At the appropriate place, insert: Sec. . Not later than December 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President and the Congressional Defense Committees a report regarding the potential for development of Ford Island within the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii through an integrated resourcing plan incorporating both appropriated funds and one or more public- private ventures. This report shall consider innovative resource development measures, including but not limited to, an enhanced-use leasing program similar to that of the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as the sale or other disposal of land in Hawaii under the control of the Navy as part of an overall program for Ford Island development. The report shall include proposed legislation for carrying out the measures recommended therein.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is a real honor today to support legislation, H.R. 3731, honoring Representative Steve Schiff. This legislation designates a special auditorium at the Sandia National Laboratories as the ``Steve Schiff Auditorium.'' Steve spoke in this Auditorium on several occasions, as part of his long service to the people of New Mexico. Steve Schiff exemplified all that was good about public service: integrity of the highest order, deep and fundamental decency, and an acute and open mind. He went about his business quietly, but with wonderful efficiency. He was great at telling stories, usually about himself. He was a model for all politicians to admire. Steve came to New Mexico from Chicago, where he was born and raised. He served the people of New Mexico in different capacities since 1972, when he graduated from the Law School at the University of New Mexico. Before election to Congress in 1988, he served as District Attorney for eight years. One of Steve's favorite local programs was his Tree Give-Away Program. For eight years, Steve held a Saturday tree give-away day at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. He gave away more than 115,000 trees. Through those trees, he shared his own hope, faith, and love. Those trees now flourish throughout the Albuquerque area in New Mexico as lasting symbols of this man. In a similar way, his legislative achievements continue to serve the American people as another reminder of this great American. Along with those trees and his legislation, the Steve Schiff Auditorium will serve as a lasting memorial. I'm happy and honored to have been a part of his life.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. When you hear my remarks, you will be pleased that you did. Mr. President, let me suggest the Appropriations Committee has come in right on the number, in terms of the budget. They have no directed spending or anything else that would seek to gimmick this budget. Some were asking, ``Will you turn the other way and let us have some directed spending that breaks the caps?'' I haven't been able to do that for anyone, and I am very grateful we do not have to do it on this bill. The chairman of this committee came in, and everywhere he moved, he said, ``Let's meet the budget right on the money.'' And he did. I commend him for that. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 2132, the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 1999. The pending bill provides $250.5 billion in total budget authority and $168.2 billion in new outlays for the Department of Defense and related activities. When outlays from prior years and other adjustments are taken into account, outlays total $245.2 billion. There are some major elements to this bill that are important for the Senate to review. The bill is consistent with the Bipartisan Balanced Budget Agreement. This year the defense budget is once again confronted with a serious mismatch between the DoD/OMB and the CBO estimates of the outlays needed to execute the programs in the budget request. CBO's estimate was $3.7 billion higher than OMB and DoD's estimate. Because the President's proposed defense spending was right up to the discretionary spending caps adopted in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, compensating for CBO scoring would require large reductions in manpower, procurement, or readiness, or all three. Cuts like that are simply not acceptable. During the Senate's consideration of the congressional budget resolution in March, the Senate received an excellent suggestion from the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We adopted a Stevens Amendment that called on CBO and OMB to resolve their differences. Several meetings occurred as a result, and under the auspices of the Budget Committee, we devised a solution. The solution has three parts: First, Congress would legislate policies recommended by the Administration to better manage cash in DoD's Working Capital Funds. This would lower fiscal year 1999 outlays by $1.3 billion. Second, Congress would agree to changes proposed by the Administration in two classified accounts in the Air Force budget that would lower 1999 outlays by $700 million. Third, Congress would enact asset sales amounting to $730 million. The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee has assured me that taken together these actions help reduce the 1999 outlay shortage to manageable dimensions and help avoid the negative effect on readiness or modernization that was feared. I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption. I want to compliment the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee on his very skillful handling of this important legislation and for his statesmanlike approach to some serious and troubling issues in this year's defense budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Senate Budget Committee table displaying the budget impact of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the chairman will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3409

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe one of the most difficult bills to appropriate and stay within the caps and the allocations under the Balanced Budget Act is the bill that the distinguished Senator, Senator Harkin, is referring to. It is difficult every single year. It will be difficult this year; he knows it and I know it. I want to make sure that everybody understands that the Senator from New Mexico did not adopt OMB numbers in arriving at the corrections that were made in the amounts of money available for the Defense appropriations bill. We will be very glad to show Senators precisely what we did. In fact, I am going to insert a statement into the Record--I won't give it--showing that we actually made policy adjustments that permitted the changes in the expectation of expenditures, and then on top of that we allowed for the sale of assets that were a certainty, and we counted those sales in terms of receipts that could be spent in this bill. What I am going to say to Senator Specter, chairman of the committee--and I told him this already--is that the staff and I are going to work with them, and we intend to do everything in our power to adjust the numbers so that they get the benefit of any policy changes that are justifiably on the side of OMB's different numbers. If that yields more money to spend, we are going to do that, and we are going to try our best. Let me repeat that we did not use OMB's numbers; we used OMB policy adjustments in a very confused procurement account, and they convinced us that in the policy that they were going to adopt, there would be more expenditures than we had expected--or less, whichever the case may be that yields more money to spend. I also want to say to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education that they chose last year to forward-fund a lot of their accounts. I am not critical. What they did is, they said, on a number of big accounts, we will not fund them for the whole year. We will fund them at the end of the year, thus, getting charged for only a small amount of money. Now, I can't help it that the chickens have come home to roost. The money is now being spent in this year, and we don't even have to appropriate; we already spent it. I can't fix that on every bill. So, Mr. President, let me just say to the Senate, the bill, which Senator Specter will chair and Senator Harkin is ranking member on, is the most difficult bill we have. And this Senator, in my responsibility to the Senate, will do everything I can to see that the numbers are accurate and that we maximize the amount of outlays. It is outlays they need; they don't need any budget authority. I will do that as soon as practicable, and our staff and theirs will start working as soon as they want us to. The amendment and its author do not accurately characterize what has been done respecting outlays for the National Defense budget function. There has been no arbitrary adjustment of CBO's scoring of defense outlays as some characterize. Instead, the following actions have been taken: The DoD Authorization bill contains legislation to reduce outlays in DoD's Working Capital funds by $1.3 billion. The DoD Authorization bill also implements policies that would reduce outlays in two Air Force accounts in classified programs by $700 million. The DoD Appropriations bill we are debating today contains a new Pentagon Renovation Fund; there has been a scoring adjustment for this new fund to bring its outlays in line with typical military construction outlay rates, rather than the higher overall rates that CBO would otherwise attribute to this spending. This adjustment amounts to about $190 million. That's the totality of any outlay scoring adjustments in this appropriations bill. There are no other adjustments to CBO scoring. I believe it is important to realize that for the adjustments that have been made, in each case there is a specific legislative and/or policy provision that is key to the adjustment, and each legislative provision should have a material impact on outlays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will give me 3 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If there is nothing further before the Senate, is not the next matter adoption of the amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment which I heretofore sent to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an unprinted amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the chairman of the committee would indulge me for an amendment on the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today with my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, and my colleague from, New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to address funding for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, referred to as FLETC. This is a consolidated law enforcement training center for the Federal Government that is operated by the Department of the Treasury. The committee bill reduces the funding for FLETC by $18.7 million below the President's budget request of $100.3 million. The bill reduces funding for both the operating and the construction and maintenance accounts, which will have serious effects on our law enforcement training program. Mr. President, some years ago, because law enforcement training became a necessity for a number of departments of the Federal Government, every major department which wanted to train their own law enforcement people, and the U.S. Government made a very good decision. They said the Department of Treasury will establish the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and it will take care of most of law enforcement training that is required for institutions and entities like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Immigration, and just an untold number of agencies that need to have their law enforcement people trained. Through good fortune, an earlier abandoned naval base in the State of Georgia, called Glynco, was the site that was determined for this Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. As a matter of fact, I am sure some wonder why I remain so interested in this. A little part of it is in the State of New Mexico. But, believe it or not, when I was a second-year Senator on the Public Works Committee, we were about to spend $600 million on a new center for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I suggested, almost in a very mild voice, wondering whether then committee chairman of the Public Works Committee would even consider this new center, and said, ``Would you adopt a resolution saying that before we agree to build a new one that we will take a year and look around and see if we might not already own a facility such as an abandoned military base?'' I think, to get rid of me, they all said, ``Let's adopt the resolution.'' And sure enough, 9 months later, before we ever spent any money, the chairman called me to his office and said, ``Look. They found a naval base in the State of Georgia which has just recently been closed, and it will be perfect. We will not have to build a new one.'' Although many, many claimed they were the people that got Glynco, I was very pleased to be invited as a brand new Senator in the back row and know that because I had asked that we not spend money until we look around, that we found it. It has been doing a marvelous job. The only major competitor is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some time ago, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, when Jim Baker was Secretary of Treasury, decided to expand and create a new one. They picked a former college in the city of Artesia, NM, which offered them the entire campus at a bargain rate, and it has since grown along with the Glynco establishment in Georgia. I came to the floor tonight to urge the committee to restore the FLETC salary and expenses and construction to the President's level. I know the committee had difficulty because they had to do a lot of things the House didn't do in their bill with the same amount of allocation, overall. But this amendment will actually allow $20 million for new construction of critical dormitory and classroom facilities at both Artesia in New Mexico and Glynco: $6.4 million for new dormitories in Artesia; $7.5 million for new dormitories at headquarters in Glynco; and, $6.4 million dollars for new classrooms at Glynco, which will be augmented by the amounts in the bill, restoring the budget request, and a proposed reprogramming of funds. Mr. President, the Congress has put a significant emphasis on law enforcement over the past decade. I have been concerned for quite some time that the law enforcement agencies of the Treasury Department--that is FLETC, the Customs Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--are overlooked when Congress talks about violent and youth crimes, drugs, gangs, and illegal immigration. The Department of the Treasury plays a very important role in this regard. While Congress has more than tripled the budget of the Department of Justice law enforcement agencies over the last decade, Treasury agencies--and this is no aspersions on the current leadership of the subcommittee--have often struggled to keep up with workloads that are increasing all the time. FLETC is a case in point. Since Congress began serious anticrime efforts, thousands of law enforcement agents have been recruited. Many of these agents receive their basic as well as advanced training at these Federal law enforcement facilities. While the administration and Congress added these agents, sufficient resources were not devoted to keep up with the training requirements. The President requested $71.9 million for the Federal law enforcement training salaries and expenses, and the committee provided $66.25. There are 70 Federal agencies that depend solely upon the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to provide all direct costs for entry level training. Without these additional funds, the number of students trained in 1999 will fall below the actual number of agents trained in 1997 while the demand is greater. That will be 3,900 less. Should the administration decide to keep training levels stable, as much as 10 percent would have to be cut from other sources or some programs would have to be reduced or eliminated such as the Office for State, Local and International Training within FLETC. Rather than go on with all of the details that I have regarding this, I just want to conclude that this is not good policy. If Congress is going to commit to strong law enforcement, it needs not only the personnel but the high-quality training needed to prepare and protect our law enforcement agents. FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, must be in position to meet those demands. Mr. President, this amendment provides important resources to support the training of our Federal law enforcement personnel. I believe the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should be a priority in this bill, and I urge adoption of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Treasury Department, signed by Raymond Kelly, Under Secretary, to me indicating that they would very much support funding the President's level in this bill for operation and for getting ready for future demands in terms of construction.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman, will you add me as a cosponsor, please?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it probably will come as a big surprise that, for example, the current price for a gallon of crude oil is cheaper than the price for a gallon of bottled water. Many people will say, ``That is great.'' Those who look at the American economy and forget about our oil production and our oilfield workers, they would say, ``Great.'' But if you are looking at how far we have gone in our oil dependence, you will see the small producers of oil in the United States are in the most serious problem they have been in in modern times. The prices are so low that I had two of them come to see me the other day. One last year had $15 million invested in new wells; this year, zero. One drilled 31 new wells last year; this year, 1. We have hundreds of thousands of small wells, called stripper wells, producing 15 barrels a day or less. Many of those, if they shut them in, the oil is gone. The entire reserve is lost. We are not sure how to fix that. It is a very complicated problem. But the amendment that is being offered, which I join in, is saying, with prices this low and the fact that we used a lot of our expensive oil during the Iraqi war, we ought to replenish with $420 million worth of purchases. At least it will stabilize somewhat the faltering prices here and may stabilize the stripper wells that are going down the tube and will not be available to America for the production of oil. The way it is paid for is to say: If the President of the United States deems it to be an emergency, then it will be an emergency under the budget. That is not exceptional. We do that for emergencies all the time. We think the oil patch is in a state of emergency. Mr. President, the head of the National Stripper Well Association, estimated that small producers already have closed 100,000 wells this year, and cut production by 300,000 barrels a day and has been forced to eliminate 10,000 jobs because of falling prices. Small oil companies are sinking with crude oil prices. Behind the price drop is the reduced demand in Asia because of its financial crisis, the prospect of Iraq selling more oil and the inability of the OPEC to agree on production cuts. The state, receives about 30 percent of its funds from oil and gas. Each dollar drop in the price of a barrel of oil translates roughly into a drop of $20 million in state revenues. In Oklahoma, the continuation of low oil prices could lead to the permanent abandonment of about three-fourths of Oklahoma's almost 90,000 oil wells. This amendment will direct the Secretary of Energy to purchase and transport and additional $420,000,000 of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve upon a determination by the President that the current market conditions are imperiling domestic oil productions from marginal and small producers. This is a small step to show support for our domestic oil industry.