Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman, with whom I have conferred and whose staff I have conferred at length, would the chairman do his best to fully fund FLETC as requested by the President when he goes to conference?

Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will send an amendment to the desk shortly which I hope will be adopted. This one is in behalf of myself, Senator Coverdell, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Cleland from the respective States, the largest center in Georgia by far, and we have kind of a small adjunct to it in the State of New Mexico. So all four Senators are on the amendment. First, we are relying upon the distinguished chairman, who will see to it in conference that the President's request for operations and the like will be met, and that probably is already in the House bill. This amendment says that within the amounts appropriated in the act, up to $20.3 million may be transferred to the acquisition, construction, improvements and related expenses account of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for new construction. I send that amendment to the desk. It is the one with the four Senators who I have mentioned.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their help in this matter, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect an amount of budget authority provided that is the dollar equivalent of the Special Drawing Rights with respect to: (1) an increase in the United States quota as part of the International Monetary Fund Eleventh General Review of Quotas (United States Quota); and (2) any increase in the maximum amount available to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as amended from time to time (New Arrangements to Borrow). Section 314(b)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, also requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect additional new budget authority and outlays for arrearages for international organizations, international peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks. I hereby submit a revision to the budget authority aggregates for fiscal year 1998 contained in section 101 of H. Con. Res. 84. The revision follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current aggregates................................. 1,385,230,000,000 Adjustments........................................ +18,172,000,000 Revised aggregates................................. 1,403,402,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DOMENICI. I hereby submit revisions to the 1998 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. The revision follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current allocation: Defense discretionary....... 269,000,000,000 266,823,000,000 Nondefense discretionary.... 249,867,000,000 283,293,000,000 Violent crime reduction fund 5,500,000,000 3,592,000,000 Mandatory................... 277,312,000,000 278,725,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI. I hereby submit revisions to the 1999 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. The revision follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current allocation: Defense discretionary....... 271,570,000,000 266,635,000,000 Nondefense discretionary.... 255,209,000,000 265,020,000,000 Violent crime reduction fund 5,800,000,000 4,953,000,000 Highways.................... ................... 21,885,000,000 Mass transit................ ................... 4,401,000,000 Mandatory................... 299,159,000,000 291,731,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask the chairman if he is stating which amendments can be offered and no others.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to address one of the international organizations funded in the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill that is currently pending. I speak of the Organization for International Economic and Cooperation, or OECD, as it is known. Mr. President, we live in an era where the pubic rightly demands both less government and higher quality services. This is an era where government downsizing and reform are expected of not just federal, state, and local governments, but also to international organizations. One organization that has understood that less is better when it comes to government is OECD. The OECD was founded in 1961 as a successor to the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, which was formed to administer the Marshall Plan. As the situation in Europe has changed, so has the work of the OECD evolved. Its purpose today is to contribute to the world economy through economic cooperation among its member nations and beyond. The OECD works on issues such as regulatory reform, electronic commerce and tax reform. With its first-rate studies and current information, OECD helps the United States and its other member nations to stay ahead of the curve in the fast-changing global economy. Its work offers policy makers important insight on what the United States can do to benefit from globalization and general economic liberalization. At the same time, the OECD has understood that it, too, has to change. On its own initiative, the OECD has undertaken a significant process of reform, committing to cut its overall spending by ten percent. It is well on its way toward achieving this goal. The distinguished Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee has put an emphasis on getting all international organizations to cut administrative costs. The pending bill reflects reductions in funding to those organizations that are above 15 percent in total administrative costs. Based on the State Department data available to the Subcommittee--a 1997 report which includes data only through 1995--the Subcommittee has reduced funding for the OECD. The OECD has indicated to me that its administrative costs are now only about 12.4 percent of its budget. I urge the Department of State to provide the Subcommittee with more recent data so that those international organizations that have reduced their overall administrative costs can be appropriately reviewed for FY 1999 funding. For organizations that have pursued reform, such as the OECD, I hope the Subcommittee will reconsider the Administration's budget request for inclusion in the final bill. waterline extension project

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this year's Captive Nations celebration is dedicated to the ``Memory of the Over 100 Million Victims of Communism.'' Behind the Iron Curtain millions were killed and millions more were victimized by the societal and political structures that coerced conformity and attempted to dictate thought in these authoritarian states. The term victim in this context conjures up SS troops and gas chambers, the purges under Stalin, Hungary in 1956, and the Prague Spring. Countless tragedies are recounted in the stories of those who fought for freedom and died at the hands of a racist regime bent on genocide or in confrontation with a relentless and overpowering Red Army. Fascism lasted for 12 years in Germany. Stalinism lasted twice as long in the Soviet Union. An estimated 6 million perished in Nazi concentration and work camps during World War II. Between 30 and 60 million perished through the work of Stalin's secret police from torture and execution. There were, however, many more who persisted and became victims for their beliefs but remained clear in their conscience. The yoke of oppression could not smote their passion. That is the essence of the ``Power of the Powerless,'' according to Vaclav Havel, dissident, writer, and political prisoner who is now President of the Czech Republic. The ideas contained in the ``Power of the Powerless'' is what I would like to convey to you on this occasion, because of its lesson in today's world where Captive Nations are few and the powerless seized the power, because it belonged to them all along. In 1978, Havel wrote: A specter is haunting Eastern Europe: the specter of what in the West is called ``dissent.'' This specter has not appeared out of thin air. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of the present historical phase of the system it is haunting. It was born at a time when the system, for a thousand reasons, can no longer base itself on the unadulterated, brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the system has become so ossified politically that there is practically no way for such nonconformity to be implemented within its official structures. The system was exemplified by the greengrocer whose store displays the slogan: ``Workers of the world, unite!'' Due to semantics, the greengrocer is indifferent to the slogan. His obedience is verbalized in a manner that does not degrade his humanity so much as the truth. ``I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.'' Ten years later, the system collapsed in the wake of dissent. The Berlin Wall fell in response to the pressure of East Germans voting with their feet, and within a year a microcosm of the former World Order vanished. Glasnost and Perestroika shook the ossified foundation of the Party and its dogma to its core, and the Soviet Union collapsed, allowing for self-determination and the birth of democracy in many formerly Captive Nations. It was the Power of the Powerless, the greengrocer's humanity, that eventually brought the system to its knees. Any political system is comprised of the individuals within it, and these individuals, victims or conformists, possess the power of conferring legitimacy to the system. In the former Captive Nations legitimacy waned when the victims refused to perpetuate the lie. When the gap between ideology and daily reality could no longer be bridged by pat slogans and prescribed ritual, the system's foundation crumbled. By accepting the rules of the game, individuals became players. But their refusal to abide by the rules frayed the tightly woven fabric of falsity upon which the system was based. Rejection of the system is encapsulated in the following description: One day something in the greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth. In his expression of his identity and human dignity, the greengrocer becomes the victim. He is purged from the system and punished. His actions are a reminder that an alternate truth exists, thus, he is a threat. He has done more than express his dissent, he has illuminated the lie that comprise his surroundings. His power is augmented in its juxtaposition to the facade. It was the many who expressed their identity in those Captive Nations who tarnished the ideological veneer that was to bridge the gap between truth and falsity. They were victimized, often murdered, for their unwillingness or incapacity to abide by the rules and forfeit their dignity. Legitimacy is the glue that holds the system together. Legitimacy must be conferred by the individuals in the system. Without the power of individuals the system must utilize force, coercion and fear to maintain control. The days of an authoritarian state are always numbered, and democracy is the only legitimate social order. It is for this reason, I believe, that in time the remaining Captive Nations-- Cuba, China, North Korea--also will join the community of democratic states. The ideological battle is over, and the system with the only solid basis for its legitimacy--its citizens--won. In memory of the millions who perished under authoritarian regimes, it is only right for us to recognize their sacrifice. They rejected the facade and refused to perpetuate or propagate the lie. Their sacrifice is also a sobering reminder of our privilege. It is also appropriate and important to recognize the victims who survived and are witness to the crimes of history. In commemoration of those who perished, it is all the more potent to recognize those who were victims and survived. Today we can applaud those who would not be victimized, the individuals who refused to be swayed by untruths and promises of power. They are the ones that I would like to remember today. The ones who fought tyranny and prevailed have offered the greatest gift to those who tried and failed. They serve as a reminder to those around them that living a lie is worse than living in fear. And in the Captive Nations they were many in 1989 and thereafter.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to discuss a very important issue today that often does not get the attention that it deserves--the need for accurate economic statistics. Policymakers rely on statistics to guide them in their decision- making process. For instance, the Federal Reserve sets interest rates based on the reported level of economic activity and inflation; Congress and the Administration craft multi-year budget proposals using an economic baseline that is built upon current data; we examine the effectiveness of different tax and fiscal reforms by their effect on measured savings rates. In all cases, we take for granted that these building block statistics give us a reliable portrayal of current economic conditions. We seldom consider just how difficult it is to construct them nor realize that it is getting harder to do so as our economy continues to evolve. We can no longer hope to measure overall economic activity by counting how many widgets roll off an assembly line. We have to put a value on financial and high-tech services. Increasingly, we will also need to be tracking internet commerce. It is imperative that our data collection methods keep pace with our rapidly changing economy. Our statistical agencies employ exceptionally talented people who are working hard to ensure that this happens. In the last several years, one can point to many notable data enhancements from our statistical agencies. For instance, BLS has worked hard to improve the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index; BEA has implemented ``chain-type'' measures for GDP which provide a more up to date reading of the economy. Despite such progress, more needs to be done. Growth is booming in the service sector, where we have the least amount of source data. We need to increase our coverage of this important part of our economy. It is imperative that we do so immediately, because there are already signs that our statistics are lagging behind the economy's advances. There has been a growing discrepancy between economic activity measured on a product basis and an income basis. In recent years, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been growing 0.5 percentage points slower than Gross Domestic Income on an annual basis. In theory, these two items should grow at the same rate since they are technically measuring the same thing. Economists speculate that GDP growth is being understated because much of our recent economic growth has been concentrated in the hard to measure service sector. While a 0.5 percentage point difference in GDP growth might not seem like a lot, it has an enormous effect on our budget projections. Over a five year period, this difference could yield up to a cumulative $140 billion swing in our surplus estimates. Indeed, many believe that an understatement of GDP is a major reason why CBO, OMB and major private economic forecasters have been underestimating revenues as of late. Thus, if we want to ensure that we have more accurate budget forecasts going forward, we should be directing our energies at improving the accuracy of the data used to build these forecasts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) which compiles the GDP series has laid out an ambitious agenda to make just such improvements to its data collection procedures. Amongst other things, they are seeking to step up their coverage of the information sector in order to ensure that comprehensive data is available for the computer industry. This is just part of their initiative to improve the GDP accounts. In order to do so, they have requested an additional $4.5 million. While this money is hard to come by given our tight budget caps, I think it is fair to say that this investment might have one of the highest rates of return within this bill. Indeed, in recent testimony to the JEC, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said that statistics are ``one of the areas where I believe the payoff is of sufficiently large magnitude where very small amounts of money can have very large potential rewards.'' I hope that we take heed of Chairman Greenspan's words and that we will be able to find the funds to allow our statistical agencies to improve their data collection processes. I believe that this is the most effective way to improve the accuracy of our budget forecasts and enhance the countless other policy decisions yet to be made.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Actually, I say to the Senator, in----

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I thank Senator Gregg. First, I am pleased to be on the floor to hear the discussions that have taken place and pleased to hear Senator Lautenberg comment about our taxpayers and the need to return to the taxpayers--he described it his own way--but to return to them some of their hard-earned money. Actually, the difference between the two resolutions is very clear now. First of all, on Social Security it could not be more clear. The Republicans do not talk about 1999 and Social Security; they say: ``Save Social Security first''-- unqualified. The difference between the two resolutions is very, very simple, but I think rather profound. First of all, both resolutions purport to say, and try to say, that we want to save Social Security first. We just say that, and we do not qualify it with reference to years or which budgets. We just say, ``save Social Security first.'' That is No. (3) in our conclusionary resolves. And then we add a fourth one. And I will just read it, because you cannot do any better than just reading the language. ``Return all remaining surpluses to American taxpayers.'' Now, that is very simple. That establishes that this resolution, which is sponsored by the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, Senator Lott, and myself, with some additional cosponsors--what we are saying is, take care of Social Security, no ifs, no ands, no buts. Any additional surpluses should be given back to the American taxpayers. Frankly, there is a great debate occurring now on what we should do with the surpluses because, believe it or not, I recall that many Senators said, ``We will never see the day that we have real surpluses.'' What was being said was, ``Social Security moneys are being used to pay for our bills. We will never reach the day when we have surpluses without using Social Security at all that are real.'' And for this discussion, I will call them ``operating surpluses.'' ``Never will we see the day.'' Well, if CBO is right, Madam President, we have seen the day, as a matter of fact, in the sixth year of this 10-year projection. And it is not a terribly optimistic set of economics; it does not take into account a real big recession, but actually in its overall calculations it assumes a rather moderate and then even a slight downturn in this economy, and it still has, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth years, a $40-billion-a-year operating surplus, not using a penny of Social Security during those years. I can recall my good friend, Senator Hollings, who is the chief sponsor of the resolution, which I commend him for, saying we would never get to that day. And I did not think we would either, I say to Senator Hollings. I never thought we would. But we are there. Frankly, we may be--we may be--in a position, believe it or not, when those surpluses occur much sooner than that. And it may be that we can fix Social Security permanently into the next century and have some very big surpluses left over, for we might not need all of the Social Security money that is in this budget to fix Social Security. We may fix it differently and make it very solvent and truly credible for the next 100 years. What we are saying--and we want this loud and clear to the American people--the American fiscal policy is such that you are paying more taxes than we need to run our Government. And we are saying, when that day arrives that we have fixed Social Security and we still have more of your taxes than we need to run this Government, we are saying we will give it back to you. I repeat--return all remaining surpluses to the American taxpayer. I would hope that rather than the two sides have an argument over that, I would hope the Democrats would support ours. Let me tell you, the only thing I can see that would not have them joining us is if they perceive that Government isn't big enough now and that what we must do in the future, Madam President, if we have the surpluses that we have both been talking about, is we have to save some of that to add more expenditures to Government. Maybe it is wishing too much that both sides of the aisle would agree on that, but I submit that we on this side of the aisle would have been badly mistaken had we voted for a resolution that did not say to the American people we have a big enough Government--we have a big enough Government. The question now is, take care of Social Security, and then do not use the excess revenues which we took from the public for more Government; give it back to the people by way of tax relief. That is a simple, as I indicated, but profound difference between the two resolutions. And I hope--I hope--that we leave here at 4:15 having turned a rather inconsequential vote into a very significant vote, because on the one hand it could be a vote that said we are going to save Social Security. But we have already agreed to that. The President has agreed to that. We put it in our budget resolution. The difference now is that in addition to that, which we are reiterating, we added a second part that says: If we get there, and we have these surpluses that it looks like we are going to have, then we do not want to have any ifs, ands, or buts about that, we want to give it back to the taxpayer in tax relief. I hope that the second-degree amendment sponsored by Senator Gregg, the chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Lott, and myself, will be adopted. If I have any time remaining, I yield it back and yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the last couple of weeks we have all been on the floor trying to get appropriations bills completed. I would just like to submit to the U.S. Senate that we ought not be doing this every year. Don't we have enough knowledge and wisdom and information to appropriate every 2 years instead of every year? Don't we have enough information about budgets and estimating that we could do a budget that lasted for 2 years and make automatic economic adjustments? Of course we do. Mr. President, if the authorizing committees are wondering why they do not have a chance to do things around here, this is one reason. Because we hardly have enough time to do the appropriations bills. Because they are up every year as if we were in constant motion. In fact, I defy even Senators with the best recollection to recall one appropriations bill from another year by year. They are so often that they are all one big glob of votes. Frankly, the Senator from New Mexico had made a mistake this year, because there is a bill at the desk saying we ought to do this every 2 years. We would get our job done better and we would have oversight time and the Senate would be a better place to work in and could do its business better. I should have started 4 months ago insisting that that bill for 2-year budgets and 2-year appropriations be voted on by the U.S. Senate. But I can tell the Senate, it will be voted on the next opportunity when our leader has some time, and it may be early next year. We are going to get that bill out of committee, and we are going to vote on this issue of whether we have to do this every single year. Frankly, we now have evidence that these bills are 90 to 95 percent similar one year over another. I know chairmen feel they have made dramatic changes year over year; and, yes, they may have. They also passed the appropriated money for bills that have not been authorized, and they know that. And their response is, ``Nobody's doing it, so we have to do it.'' Well, nobody is doing it because there is no time for anybody to do it. Mr. President, I believe many Senators agree with this. I have talked to them at length on it. Frankly, we are going to decide in the Senate pretty soon whether we are going to keep on doing this. I am not sure we will win, but surely we are going to present this issue. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Is there an order established at this point?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate-reported Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill, S. 2260, represents the excellent work of my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Subcommittee Chairman Gregg. It is a difficult task to balance the competing program requirements funded in this bill, and he and his staff are to be commended for their efforts to present a sound and equitable measure for the Senate's consideration. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the bill totals $33.2 billion in budget authority and $31.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999. The bill is within the revised Senate Subcommittee's Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. It is $10 million in budget authority and $6 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. It is $1.4 billion in budget authority and $2.6 billion in outlays above the 1998 level. I today submit a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill. It is a pleasure serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee with Chairman Gregg. I appreciate the consideration he gave to issues I brought before the Subcommittee, as well as his attention to the many important programs contained in this bill. I ask unanimous consent the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2138, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The bill, as reported provides $1.6 billion in new budget authority and $1.3 billion in outlays for the Senate and other legislative branch agencies, including the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the Government Printing Office, among others. As a matter of comity, the bill does not include funding for operations of the House of Representatives. When outlays from prior year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the bill totals $2.4 billion in budget authority and outlays. The bill is under the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation $38 million in budget authority and at its allocation for outlays. I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for producing a bill that is substainially within their 302(b) allocation. I am pleased that this bill continues to hold the lien on congressional spending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of S. 2137, as reported. I urge the Senate to support this bill and refrain from offering amendments that would cause the subcommittee to violate its 302(b) allocation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect additional new budget authority and outlays for an earned income tax credit compliance initiative and for arrearages for international organizations, international peacekeeping, and multilateral development banks. I hereby submit revisions to the 1999 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act. The revisions follow: [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current allocation: Defense discretionary........................... 271,570 266,635 Nondefense discretionary........................ 254,591 264,403 Violent crime reduction fund.................... 5,800 4,953 Highways........................................ ......... 21,885 Mass transit.................................... ......... 4,401 Mandatory....................................... 299,159 291,731

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has today passed S. 1510, the Rio Arriba, New Mexico Land Conveyance Act of 1998. This legislation will provide long-term benefits for the people of Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Seventy percent of Rio Arriba County is in federal ownership. Communities find themselves unable to grow or find available property necessary to provide local services. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretary of the Interior real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus administrative site for the Carson National Forest to Rio Arriba County. The site is known as the old Coyote Ranger District Station, near the small town of Coyote, New Mexico. The Coyote Station will continue to be used for public purposes, including a community center, and a fire substation. Some of the buildings will also be available for the County to use for storage and repair of road maintenance equipment, and other County vehicles. Mr. President, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of no further use to them, since they have recently completed construction of a new administrative facility for the Coyote Ranger District. The Forest Service reported to the General Services Administration that the improvements on the site were considered surplus, and would be available for disposal under their administrative procedures. At this particular site, however, the land on which the facilities have been built is withdrawn public domain land, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. I have worked closely with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management since introducing this bill in November. The Administration is supportive of the legislation and the changes made to the bill. Mr. President, since neither the Bureau of Land Management nor the Forest Service have any interest in maintaining Federal ownership of this land and the surplus facilities, and Rio Arriba County desperately needs them, passage of S. 1510 is a win-win situation for the federal government and New Mexico. I look forward to the House's agreement and Presidential signature soon.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. With the time having expired, is a point of order in order at this time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order that the pending amendment by Senator Wellstone that would repeal the provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, T21, that pay for the additional highway and transit spending in that bill violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. Everybody should understand that we have already passed and the President has signed an ISTEA bill. The moneys that are encapsulated in the amendment by Senator Wellstone would now have to come out of that bill, and as a matter of fact this particular VA-HUD bill before us would get charged with $500 million and thus make it break its cap because we would be spending $500 million in directed spending in this bill that does not come within the caps. So here is the practical effect of this amendment. Should this $500 million in spending come out of the programs in this bill or any other bill that has yet to be considered by the Senate--Interior, Transportation, Commerce, Justice, Labor-HHS, Foreign Operations--if this additional spending is not ultimately offset in some fashion, the overall spending caps would be violated by $500 million and a sequester would be the end result with all nondefense programs being cut $500 million. Finally, I must alert my colleagues that if this provision stands in the final bill, not only the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill will be charged the cost but the nondefense discretionary spending caps will be reduced by $15 billion for the years 2000-2002. That is the amount of the mandatory spending that would occur under T21 and not be paid for by this repeal. The issue has been fully debated. We debated it in the Chamber when we were taking up ISTEA. It has been up in its totality one additional time and partially one other time. I believe we have spoken. We have voted. I particularly urge that the Senate not open this matter at this late date. This is not a technical point of order. This is a serious point of order. If this amendment passes, essentially we will add $15 billion to the expenditures under the caps, meaning that all other programs will bear cuts related to that. And in this particular year, $500 million will have to be cut from all of the domestic programs that we have unless we raise the caps by $500 million--break the budget and raise the caps by $500 million. Mr. President, I do not choose to debate the substance of this issue. I assume it was discussed yesterday by the distinguished prime sponsor of this amendment. But I submit that in this bill, veteran spending is going up, not down. In this bill before us, and in the ISTEA bill, the veterans of America have received substantially more money than they got last year. In addition, a $1.5 billion new add-on for the education programs for veterans occurred in the ISTEA bill. So we are doing our job in behalf of veterans and we need not visit this once again and cut all the programs of Government by the amounts I have discussed here today. So I raise a point of order, subject to the provisions that I have heretofore enumerated. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.