Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask the majority leader, and will do that immediately upon our completing here, that we not be back on this resolution before 1 o'clock on Monday. I cannot agree to that at this point, but I will ask and I think it will be agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't need more than 3 minutes. Mr. President, my State borders Mexico. A year and a month ago, I was on the floor of the Senate complaining about a failure on the part of Mexico to do its job in terms of restricting drugs coming across the border. We all got into a tremendous argument with the republic of Mexico. And, as a matter of fact, it did no good whatsoever. So to those who have taken the time of the U.S. Senate, in very brilliant ways, with wonderful charts, and told us how badly Mexico has failed to pass the test, I just ask this: If we vote to decertify them, are they going to get better? Is there a correlation between saying they should not be certified and getting some real cooperation out of Mexico? I ask any Senator who says, ``let's go ahead and decertify and say to Mexico, you are not cooperating,'' to stand up and tell the Senate that if we did that, things would really get better. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, there is a good chance, because this process is so outrageously stupid, that if we decertify Mexico, things will get worse. All of these things people are worried about-- and I see them in my State and I am worried about them, too--are just going to get worse rather than better. If you pound the Mexican economy and penalize Mexico because they haven't been cooperating, do things like take away IMF, the World Bank, and other assistance, all in the name of making Mexico cooperate, do you know what will happen? Every headline across their country will clearly state: ``Los Americanos no quieren los Mexicanos,'' ``They don't like Mexicans.'' That is what it will say in big headlines this thick. That is not going to result in cooperation. What we need to do is repeal the certification statute. It is useless. And we need to replace it with something that will measure cooperation by law enforcement people. Let me ask you one more time. If things are not going well between Mexico and America regarding drugs, you stand up and tell the U.S. Senate that you will vote with us to de-certify and things will get better. You stand up and say that--any Senator. Just give us a minute or two so we can get up and tell you they will get worse, and that is because this certification law is some kind of an anomaly that doesn't really fit the relationship between Mexico and America today. Let me close. For the Mexicans who are listening, don't think the Senator from New Mexico is excusing your lack of performance. I was the first one to jump on Mexico for not extraditing Mexican drug lords back here to be tried. But let me tell you, they have to do better. I don't believe they will do one bit better if we decertify. I don't believe the President ought to sign the decertification, and we ought to get on with doing something constructive, instead of destructive which will cause no good to America or Mexico. Thank you for the time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment, that I am offering with Senator Bingaman, represents the conclusion of several months of constructive discussion between us. Together, we have reached an agreement on this legislation, which will allow the City of Albuquerque to proceed with the extension of a roadway to the west side of Petroglyph National Monument, if it decides to do so. This amendment also provides that if the city elects to move forward with this extension, that: The road will be similar in design to a road that is already constructed along the monument boundary; the Park Service will have the opportunity to provide constructive comments on the road design; if needed, the roadway could be expanded to as many as six lanes at some point in the future; and Washington will not stand in the way of this local decisionmaking process. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be accepted.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I have an amendment which was agreed to in the Appropriations Committee. I told the Members that we were going to attempt to resolve one issue that was in dispute. We have resolved it. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. I waited on the floor to see if Senator Kennedy was coming back, and I am glad he is here, because I have reviewed this as best I can and I am going to support the amendment that Senator Nickles has offered. There is a very good argument that can be made that, in fact, this request that the administration puts forth in a two-thirds sheet of paper, may be justified. Let me suggest there is equal reason to say the administration has done a very poor job of preparing for the implementation the law has referred to with reference to access, with reference to portability, and with reference to another law that is different from that that has to do with mental parity. As a matter of fact, it seems to this Senator that if Senator Nickles prevails--and I don't know whether he will or not--HCFA ought to get the message that they have two very difficult statutes to enforce and they ought to get ready for enforcing them in an orderly manner, not to come up here 6 months into a year with a request that all of a sudden they found out that they may have to enforce, because of the absence of State willingness, they may have to enforce in a number of States. Who would ever have thought you could put together a HCFA budget charged with these two responsibilities and assume that States will all enforce them? Is there anybody who knows what goes on who would agree with that? They should have at least in their regular budget anticipated that they would have a very major enforcement requirement and responsibility. Now, I also want to say to those who think that maybe this is harsh on HCFA, I have not said this before, but if you want to see some action that is harsh on HCFA, look at the President's budget. The President's budget on HCFA does the following: It assumes a series of user fees, one of which is extremely high that one would hardly believe would ever pass, and the President assumes those user fees are going to pay for HCFA, so he doesn't put enough money in HCFA. Forget this little $6 million. He shortchanges it by many, many millions on a wish that user fees will be adopted because he has requested it. Now, frankly, I think they better get their act together, and they will find a very sympathetic Senator Domenici. My second point. I have read everything I can from this administration, and I say to my wonderful cosponsor and hard worker on mental parity that I find nothing in the written material that suggests that mental parity is an issue here, mental illness parity. They are talking about the statute that Kennedy referred to. Now, they can get up this morning and say, ``Maybe we need some more support on the floor, so let's talk about mental illness parity also.'' If that is the case, let me just ask, did they ever assume that all the States would have taken up the enforcement of mental illness parity? Of course not. They should have been prepared for it. They just prepared a budget and they will have another one in 6 months. So essentially, while I will do everything within my power to see that the letter of the law on mental illness parity is enforced, I don't think we ought to just accept from the administration, from a HCFA that is rather disorganized, to say the least, another request for $16 million. Now, I understand $10 million is not nearly as urgent, and probably even those who oppose Nickles can agree that the $10 million is not necessary. So perhaps I am erring on the wrong side here, but I think my judgment is to send a signal back to them, loud and clear, that the Senate will put up the money to enforce these two provisions because we voted for them very heavily. In fact, we voted almost as heavily for parity as we did for the rather famous Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. I am very pleased people supported my efforts and the efforts of Senator Wellstone on that. I won't take a back seat to anyone in my willingness to do anything I can to see if mental illness parity will work. I don't think this is necessary to move it down the line and see it work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I are on the floor of the Senate today in a sense to report bad news to the Senate about a wonderful New Mexican. Late this morning, in my home city in Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S. Representative Steve Schiff, 51 years of age, died as a result of a lingering cancer. We both felt we ought to share a few thoughts with the Senate and with our people. So I would just like to say to the Senate that you know when you meet different people in political life certain things stand out about them. Steve Schiff used to almost brag about the fact that he came from Chicago, that he was a Jewish boy from Chicago who came to New Mexico. Some would not want to talk about being from Chicago if they were representing New Mexicans, but somehow or another he kind of thought he would like to tell them that, so he told it to them so often, they never cared. He served as a district attorney and probably was the best prosecutor we have had in terms of getting his job done. As I was coming over, I told Senator Bingaman I was voting one day in a precinct of my home in Albuquerque and I saw two elderly women behind me checking off whom they would vote for. One said to the other, ``Vote for Steve Schiff.'' And the other lady, probably about 75 said, ``Why?'' She said, ``Because he was a great district attorney and he did his job well there. He'll do it well in Washington.'' That said to me that people really understand when you have a real public servant. In behalf of my wife Nancy and myself, I guess I want to say that we have been very lucky because we got to know Steve Schiff. We are very fortunate because we got to know a public servant who just exemplified what we would think a public servant should be. He was of the highest integrity, he had a deep and fundamental decency, and, yes, he had an acute and open mind. He was very, very bright. New Mexico and the rest of this Nation have lost a wonderful public servant. He was the best of political leaders. And I lost a good friend. He was of my party, but he had great bipartisan support. He was always around to listen and always gave great advice. Today on the Senate floor I extend, on behalf of my wife and myself, our condolences to his many close friends, to his wife and their two wonderful children, and I look forward to seeing all of them when we attend his wake. But here today in the Senate, I just want to say, ``Thank you, Steve. Thanks for what you were, thanks for what you left us to understand and remember about you, and may more people try to be like Steve Schiff, a real, decent, honest public servant.'' Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That includes defense, which more than half of that is. Do you want it to come out of defense?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that revisions to the 1998 Senate Appropriations Committee allocation, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, be printed in the Record,

Mr. DOMENICI. Could I speak for 2 minutes? One minute?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for finding 2 minutes for me. There are so many Senators who worked on this to get this amendment done with the appropriate reforms that will stand the test of international participation and yet be something that will be accommodating. I do not want to mention names, except I want to mention one freshman Senator--Chuck Hagel. I say to Senator Hagel, it has been a pleasure working with you on this. And I compliment you for your leadership. Mr. President, fellow Senators, there will be some Senators who disagree with this statement, but I think the final test of how you ought to vote in the Senate is whether the measure before you is the right thing to do. I do not think there is any question that, looking at our country and how we might suffer, if the countries that are in trouble in Asia do not have an opportunity consistent with reasonable reforms to get their economies back as soon as possible, we are going to suffer. I am already suggesting that inland States, like New Mexico, are suffering immensely by way of layoffs in the computer chip business because of the slowdown in that market. Now, I do not know that we are smart enough to know how to fix everything that went wrong there, but the amendments and this extension will, indeed, give the international community an opportunity to see if they cannot get vital reforms and make this International Monetary Fund functional and operative as those countries in that part of the world attempt to put their banking system and their monetary policy back on sound ground. Ultimately, it will never cost America anything. I do not believe it is going to cost us anything but reserves behind these loans. And participatory arrangements are adequate to cover any obligation that will be forthcoming. But we need a significant reserve. This amendment will let the other countries come in with their part and we will have a significant reserve for the future. Mr. President, I support the pending amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, authorizing and providing appropriations to the International Monetary Fund. Primarily, it is the depletion of funds at the IMF that has brought the urgency of this matter to our attention. There are two funding issues before the Congress in the supplemental request: a $3.5 billion appropriation to the IMF's emergency reserve--the New Arrangements to Borrow, and the periodic appropriation for the US quota subscription, the regular pool of money at the IMF, equal to $14.5 billion. The Budget Committee in February held a meeting with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Michel Camdessus to engage us in a frank discussion about the IMF. What I learned then I hope to share with many members inclined to vote against the IMF funding today. I know that many Members are very suspicious of foreign aid--but let me explain today why this is not foreign aid and why the Senate should do everything possible to fund the IMF. First, last Thursday we received the most current economic data and it shows the effects of the ongoing Asian financial crisis. January's US trade deficit surged to $12.0 billion, its highest level since 1987. This was led by a near doubling of our deficit with Asian countries excluding Japan and China. This is a direct result of the Asian financial crisis--which has cut demand in Asia for U.S. exports. Because of the cheaper Asian currencies against the dollar, now Asian imports are much cheaper and much more competitive in the United States. Second, the Asian crisis has convinced many of our top technology companies to warn of lower profits, including IBM, Compaq, Intel, Motorola, as well as many smaller companies. In my state of New Mexico, the result has been announcements by Philips and Motorola that they will furlough or lay off hundreds of employees. Mr. President, let me explain the problem facing the IMF and why the Senate must act and act quickly. Presently the IMF has uncommitted resources to lend a further $10 to $15 billion to its members before its liquidity is reduced to historically low levels. The lowest ratio ever allowed at the IMF by its members was 33%. Historically a comfortable level was 120-140%, but after the Mexico and Russian loans, liquidity fell to 88%. Presently the liquidity ratio is 47%. To lower today's ratio to 33% would require only $10-15 billion in possible loans to countries in crisis. Mr. President, the 182-members of the IMF decided last year before the Asian crisis that the reserves of the IMF were too low. That was before they lent $20 billion to Korea, $10 billion to Thailand, and $5 billion to Indonesia. Mr. President, let me be clear about one fact--If the US chooses not to fund our share of the increase, there will be no increases from the other 181 members of the IMF. 85% of current members must increase their quotas for it to be implemented, and since the US holds over 17%, no US participation would guarantee no world participation in the increased funding. This would mean that any more crises in Asia or other emerging markets, could see the IMF run seriously short of cash. And that is a risk neither America nor the US Senate should take. While the IMF was created in 1944 originally to support global trade and economic growth by helping maintain stability in the international monetary system, as the monetary system has evolved, so has the IMF's duties. With the Mexican peso crisis in 1995 and the current Asian financial crisis, this new IMF has become more apparent to all of us. While the exact economic causes of the Mexico crisis are quite different from Asia, Mexico and Asia have one striking similarity. They represent a major structural change in international capital markets that has occurred over the past decade--the increasing capital flows into and out of emerging economies. Capital flows into emerging markets rose from $25 billion in 1986 to $235 billion in 1996. Given the potentially destabilizing role of investor confidence especially when directing capital flows, we must ask --what is the role for domestic government policy or the IMF in addressing instability? Mr. President, the Asian financial crisis has also raised an important policy question for the IMF--whether the Fund's willingness to lend in a crisis contributes to ``moral hazard''--the tendency for countries or investors to behave recklessly while expecting the IMF will likely bail them out in an emergency. There is no consensus on what role private financiers play in such crises and how they should bear the consequences of their actions. The IMF and the US still need to figure out how to safeguard a financial system without bailing out investors who are guilty of making bad decisions. Mr. President, I believe most Senators can agree on one factor: the IMF is too secretive in its operations and escapes accountability and public debate. The bill as written by Senator Hagel would address this concern by requiring greater transparency by the IMF in its lending practices, its strategies with respect to borrowing countries, economic data collection, and its own accounting and financial information. Demands for greater transparency at the IMF are forthright and appropriate as we consider the supplemental request, and given the IMF's extreme secrecy, this is an important condition we should insist upon for any US dollars spent at any international organization. Mr. President, as more and more evidence becomes stronger on the long-term benefits of free trade, it is surely time that the IMF does more to promote it. In Senator Hagel, he specifically addresses this as a condition of the IMF funding. Immediately the WTO Financial Services Agreement comes to mind--what better way for many of the Asian countries to introduce needed competition to their banking industries than by signing on to the WTO Financial Services Agreement. The WTO and the IMF should be working more closely together to achieve the same goals--economic growth through free trade. Mr. President, while many US Senators today may debate whether or not we should even have an IMF, a time of crisis such as today in Asia is not the appropriate time for the US to effectively gut the IMF. Regarding the budgetary treatment of the IMF, the way we count the IMF contributions is a little unusual. Since 1967, the budget has treated contributions to the IMF as budget authority only; contributions to the IMF do not affect outlays or the budget deficit, or surplus. Only since 1980 has the Congress required an appropriation. Last year's Balanced Budget Agreement specifically addresses the IMF funding until fiscal year 2002 and effectively allows legislation that provides an increase in U.S. contributions to the IMF to not be required to offset the budget authority. Section 314 provides a procedure to adjust the discretionary spending caps and budget totals. Some in Congress have argued that the IMF is putting the US taxpayer at risk similar to the US savings and loan crisis in the 1980s. There is one stark difference: savings and loan institutions held a US government guarantee. With the IMF, there is no US guarantee in times of default. And even most economists agree that the prospects of an IMF default are negligible. No country has ever defaulted on its IMF loans, arrears on IMF loans are modest, and gold and currency reserves substantially exceed any foreseeable losses in the event of a liquidation. The IMF has not cost the US Treasury the loss of any federal resources over the years. In a democracy such as ours, the debate over replenishing the IMF's reserves is the perfect time to debate what role the IMF should play in the global capital market and its accountability to member nations. This is no different than the examination we give to our domestic programs to decide if they are still relevant in today's world. Mr. President, today's financial world is an uncertain one--but the IMF has been a key component to the stability the United States has enjoyed over the last few years and also a key proponent of many US economic policies around the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. How big does a disaster have to be in terms of its outyear cost for you not to expect it to be paid for out of education money and NIH money and others? How about the Alaskan earthquake? I assume we had 5, 6 percent of the entire budget of the United States in one or two of those years. Is that big enough? Or should we assimilate that and reduce education funding and NIH funding and all the other funds, highway funds?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, because I know you intend always to be very precise and specific, and I laud you for that, and you are eloquent in your remarks, I hope you do not speak of a $1.7 trillion budget unless you want to take money out of Social Security and Medicare and all the other entitlements. That is two-thirds of the budget. So we ought to be talking about the right number. Nobody is expecting this to come out of Social Security. Are you?

Mr. DOMENICI. Out of Medicare?

Mr. DOMENICI. That is about right.

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). I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a revision to the budget authority aggregates for fiscal year 1998 contained in section 101 of H. Con. Res. 84.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, my amendment does not increase the cost of the emergency supplemental in any way. What it does is it freezes in place the current posture of civilian personnel authorizations at all Army Test Ranges, including White Sands Missile Range until such time as the Congress, and this Committee, has an opportunity to consider the merits of the President's fiscal year 1999 budget as it relates to this installation. It is a very simple, straight forward amendment, and it is necessary for me to proceed in this way at this time because the Department of the Army has chosen to circumvent the congressional oversight process. Let me tell you how: Because of budgetary constraints, the Department of the Army made a distributional decision that would reduce White Sands Missile Range's WSMR's, overall RDT&E budget by approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1999. As a result, WSMR was asked to plan for a reduction of as many as 550 full-time civilian positions. Subsequently, in late December 1997, the Army agreed to provide approximately $11 million to WSMR for the purpose of offering Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, VERA, and Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay, VSIP, benefits. This ameliorated some of the civilian personnel reductions that are scheduled to take place in fiscal year 1999. With the VERA and VSIP benefits, the Army's plan for WSMR is to reduce approximately 350 civilian personnel. I do not believe it is prudent for the Army to be reducing civilian personnel authorizations at WSMR until such time as the Congress has an opportunity to consider the merits of such actions during the fiscal year 1999 defense appropriations process. Unfortunately, the Army has directed WSMR to open the window of opportunity for retirement benefits from now until March 31, 1998. This action effectively precludes the Congress from exercising any oversight responsibility of the Department of Defense decisions in this regard. Once civilian personnel at WSMR elect to take the benefits, those civilian personnel positions are essentially eliminated. In addition, if the Army does not find enough personnel who are willing to take the benefits, a Reduction In Force, RIF, will have to occur and its timing will be such that the Congress will have little or no ability to address these issues. Finally, what should cause great concern to every member who is interested in Congressional oversight, the Army is using fiscal year 1998 funds to implement reductions that are planned to occur in fiscal year 1999. This circumvents the Congressional oversight process. Again, my amendment prohibits the Department of the Army from continuing to move forward with any civilian personnel reductions at WSMR until such time as the Congress has the opportunity to consider the merits of such action during the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations process. In addition, the bill language requires the Department of the Army to offer such VERA and VSIP benefits as are currently being offered should such benefits be necessary at a future date.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want to use the rest of the time. Are we scheduled to vote at 2:15?

Mr. DOMENICI. I note the presence on the floor of a number of Senators with whom I have worked diligently to try to get this bill accomplished. I am very proud of the result. Let me suggest, however, that I now hear rumors coming from, it seems, the direction of the House, that we have not done enough. Well, that may be one thing in terms of how many demonstration projects we have to do. I assume we will go through that general ritual, and who knows where the wheel of fortune--we see that every night at 6:30 or 7 o'clock--will land, who will win, and who gets all the goodies. Somebody, obviously. I hear, in addition to that, that there is some thought we ought to go further, that we ought to take the entire trust fund off budget. Let me suggest to my friends in the Senate, obviously, I have little or no impact, I assume, on the House at this point on that issue. Frankly, I thought we engaged in good faith in a way to get us through this transition of 4 or 5 years when we have caps we have to comply with. I have committed to try to do that in a way that doesn't decimate domestic programs that are within that cap. Frankly, if somebody wants to go much further and take the entire program off budget, then I don't know how we will meet those caps, for they take with it the few billion dollars in reserves that have accumulated, that are in the unified budget. They are mostly interest payments that have accrued over time. I thought we made a very, very, honest effort to find a way to get through. Those caps are applicable for only 3 more years--after the one that is the prime year in this bill, only 3 years after that--and then they are not there anymore and we all have some work to do. It is not just highways. We have to pay for the National Institutes of Health. We have to pay for education. These programs compete with them. I have said let's compete with them and let's try to find offsets. I submit, to make that job almost impossible would be the result if you took this in conference and took it all off budget. Frankly, I don't know that I can do any more than say that and say I hope the Senators won't, in conference, agree to any such thing. I hope that it is left as it is and you make whatever accommodations you have to make and this program will live to be seen and heard from another day, as will the trust fund. I don't believe we can spend much more than we are planning here. I think we ought to leave it alone. I urge my fellow Senators, with whom I have worked very hard, try to see that is the result coming out of conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Are we under an order whereby I cannot speak at this point, or may I speak before the vote?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators for listening.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the many Senators whose cooperative efforts have brought this vital legislation to the Senate floor. I personally wish to thank the distinguished Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Chafee of Rhode Island for his work in helping negotiate the deal to increase highway funding while maintaining the balanced budget agreement reached last year. When I entered the Senate in 1973 until 1987, I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I know the history and evolution of highway programs in this country. We are, Mr. President, a country on wheels. I know the importance of highways to our economy. Every dollar invested in the highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefits to the nation. A transportation system that works without traffic jams, and efficiently moves goods across town or across the state, is an important asset for economic development. Good roads lower the price consumers pay for food, clothing and other goods. Lower prices can increase disposable income, attract new business and new jobs to an area. The highway system is the economic lifeblood of our nation, and of my home state of New Mexico. Good roads get us where we need to go, on time and safely. President Eisenhower recognized that roadways are the arteries of American body politic when he created the Interstate system following World War II. My constituents in New Mexico have indicated their biggest concern is roads. Bad roads constitute 43% of the New Mexico road system, placing us, Mr. Chairman, behind only Rhode Island in the highest percentage of bad roads in the Country. Driving on roads riddled with potholes, bumps, buckles and cracks costs New Mexico motorists $281 million a year just in additional mechanic's repair bills and operating costs. Highway improvements are urgently needed in New Mexico, and this agreement will assure us of substantial increases for that work over next 6 years. Should the current version of this bill pass, New Mexico would receive more than $1.5 billion for road construction and maintenance funds over the next six years--a 48% increase. Financing highway construction and related activities creates jobs. Almost 10 million workers, a full seven percent of the civilian workforce, are employed in transportation and related industries. Each $1 billion in new federal highway investment nationwide generates an additional 439 full-time jobs in my state of New Mexico. Repairing the national transportation system will increase productivity in all sectors of the economy. The goal of this legislation is the efficient and safe transportation of goods and people. We have agreed to spend all incoming gas taxes on highways, so New Mexicans can be sure they are getting their money's worth at the pump. We have encountered some potholes on this road of reaching an agreement consistent with the balanced budget agreement. But make no mistake, throughout negotiations, Pete Domenici has been for building roads in New Mexico. The New Mexico Legislature recently approved, and Governor Johnson signed, a $1.1 billion highway funding package that depends on federal dollars from this legislation to complete projects in the state. For the first time in history, every community in New Mexico with a population over 15,000 will be served by a four lane highway connected to the interstate highway system. For example, Highway 44 between Bernalillo and Bloomfield, one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the country, will be widened to 4 lanes with the arrival of these additional federal dollars. After waiting for more than 25 years, New Mexico will finally be able to complete improvements to highway 70; a vital link on the Eastern side of the state connecting the mountainous community of Ruidoso to Roswell and Portales. What we in New Mexico affectionately refer to as ``the Big I''--the intersection of Interstates 25 and 40 which bisects the state in Albuquerque--is in desperate need of improvement. Too often this area resembles a parking lot rather than a main thoroughfare. Traffic is so bad that normally courteous drivers often become frustrated and succumb to ``road rage;'' jockeying for position, cutting each other off, and making single-finger salutes. A recent Albuquerque Journal article suggests that motorists in New Mexico's largest city may begin to refer to 1998 as the year of the orange barrel. However, the city of Albuquerque, as well as the nation, will benefit from the long-awaited improvements to this vital crossroad. Congestion and traffic have contributed to the ``brown cloud'' in Albuquerque from carbon monoxide. The $6.6 million provided to New Mexico annually in the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality portion of this bill will continue the programs which have allowed Albuquerque to become the first U.S. city to emerge from non-compliance with air quality standards. It may seem unusual to some that a Senator from New Mexico helped protect mass transit dollars in this road bill. However, New Mexico will benefit from these funds in the development of transit systems in, as well as between, her larger cities. Even the smaller city of Roswell as contributed to mass transit technology. The NovaBus Corporation has designed efficient busses which have been utilized in metropolitan areas like New York City. New Mexico has lots to offer our nation's transportation needs. New Mexico is the fifth largest state, comprising nearly 3.5% of the land area of the United States, yet it ranks only 36th in population. However, New Mexico is also one of the fastest growing states in the Union, and its traffic volume has tripled in the last ten years. Heavy 18 wheelers moving goods pass through New Mexico, between manufacturing and population centers in Texas and California. We don't directly benefit from the majority of this traffic, but it does tear up our roads. As I have been recently reminded, almost 27 million acres of my fair state, approximately \1/3\ of its land area, is owned by the federal government, with more held in trust for the many native Americans within its borders. As this nation's Interstate highway ages, repaving and maintenance is endless. Major reconstruction is necessary, which is the state's responsibility. New Mexico maintains highway systems through those lands, while having no tax base to recover any costs. I am pleased this bill includes an additional $250 million for roadway improvements on public lands throughout the nation. Perhaps the National Park Service will improve the roads within the Chaco Culture National Historic Park so that visitors from around the country will be able to share in its splendor. New Mexico also shares 175 miles of its border with Mexico. Our state has welcomed the increased economic activity associated with the passage of NAFTA, but the nation must also realize the increased traffic and cost to road infrastructure which has followed. I am pleased that this bill includes $450 million for states to meet NAFTA -related road needs. I am also pleased my amendment which amends the Trade corridor and Border Crossing planning program was approved. This amendment allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider the projected increase in commercial traffic when selecting recipients of border grants. The current provisions direct the Secretary of Transportation to only consider current and past traffic when allocating funds under this program. Many border facilities, including Santa Teresa in New Mexico, have opened since the passage of NAFTA. This amendment will enable the Secretary to consider the future growth of commercial traffic at ports when awarding grant requests. I, along with the other Senator from New Mexico, also offered amendments which enable the Department of Transportation to benefit from the expertise of our nation's federal laboratories in solving transportation needs. In utilizing existing laboratory capability where appropriate, we can ensure past taxpayer investment will earn dividends long into the future. Our amendments encourage cooperation and information exchange within the federal system in development of transportation technology. We should, where we can, avail ourselves of the exceptional talent already available in our federal laboratories. I encourage the prompt passage of ISTEA II in the Senate, so that the House of Representatives will quickly address the country's transportation needs and construction can continue without delay. New Mexico is a large state with a small population, many citizens are isolated without adequate roads. Contract authority provided by this legislation is needed to continue federal road and transit construction and maintenance throughout the country. Major construction season is about to commence; states need their highway funds. I urge prompt passage of this important bill. Mr. President, again, let me thank all the Senators who have worked together to get this bill moving on the Senate floor. In addition to the distinguished chairman Chafee, I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Phil Gramm, who originally brought up the idea trying to spend as much of the 4.3 cents as had been transferred to the trust fund as possible, consistent with the caps we have heretofore agreed upon in the balanced budget. During the 14 years I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee I learned that there is nothing more important to the American people and the people of my State than the roads they drive every day of their lives. Many Americans work miles from where they live. Freedom to many is to get where you want to go as easily as possible, and in your own car. Frankly, I believe that is as much a part of the good life in America as anything else. But while we have been taking highway money and spending it on other projects, congestion grows. While we are all interested in mass transit and transportation technology, it is obvious that you have to spend money on bricks, mortar, cement, and the like, to improve the roadway system. New Mexicans are going to be very pleased when this bill clears the House and goes to the President, because our State is going to be able to take care of many projects that have been long delayed. We will try to make improvements to the interstate in our largest city to relieve congestion. A city of 750,000 should not be so congested. There are many aspects of this bill that are going to help New Mexico. Many of roads on Indian lands are impassable in winter months. Only in the last 16 years have we been allocating federal funds to improve these roads, and this bill increases that funding by $50 million to $250 million annually. Our legislature has cooperated with our Governor, and they have a series of major projects that are going to be funded out of the highway program in, indeed, new and innovative ways, with long-term bonds and financing, if and when this bill becomes law. I look forward to that. I have already commented how this highway money is needed in the State of New Mexico. I will conclude by saying that when we have an economy as robust as ours is today, it is not time to let up on road building. Our economy lives on the highways and byways of America. The more congestion, the less efficient, the less effective we are. Moving business efficiently and effectively the length and breadth of this nation, will ensure the American economy continuing its rather tremendous competitive advantage in the world. From the smallest town that needs its roads improved to the very big issue of how this Nation remains competitive--I feel that passage of this bill is as important as anything else we do in the next 4 or 5 years. increasing the allocations to indian reservation roads Most Indians today still live in poverty. This is reflected in a per capita income figure that is one-sixth to one-fifth the national average for the 10 largest Indian reservations. In simplest terms, most reservation Indians have one dollar of income for every five dollars of income available to average Americans. On the Papago reservation in Arizona, the per capita income is $3,113 compared to $18,325 for all Americans (1990 Census). At Zuni Pueblo, the per capita income is $3,904 and at that Navajo reservation it is $3,735. These figures have changed only slightly since the 1990 Census. Fifty-one percent of American Indians residing on reservations live below the poverty line; and unemployment averages 37%. ISTEA has already helped tremendously to increase the accessibility of Indian people, but much remains to be done. We can help accelerate the movement of Indian people into mainstream economic activities by improving their accessibility to better markets and better tourism opportunities. ISTEA II, S. 1173, now authorizes a grand total of $173 billion for all programs over the six year life of the bill. This is a nominal increase of about 43 percent. As passed by the Senate, S. 1173 funds the Indian Reservations Roads Program at $200 million for 1998 and $250 million per year for each of the following five years of the bill, from 1999 through 2003. I am pleased that the Committee on Environment and Public Works has included $9 million annually (within the total $250 million) to allot to the repair and construction of Indian bridges. The Domenici-Inouye-Bingaman amendment, as accepted by the Committee will add a total of $250 million over five years. Our amendment brings the six year total IRR funds up to $1.450 billion from the current $1.200 billion prior to the Domenici amendment. While our original IRR bill, S. 437, included road maintenance as an eligible activity, this amendment does not include road maintenance. We expect the BIA to continue to fund its road maintenance program, hopefully at higher levels than $25 million per year. The Indian Reservation Road Program is directed to about 22,000 miles of BIA roads serving Indian lands. There is a total road mileage, counting BIA, state, federal, tribal, and county roads, of about 50,000 miles on our nation's Indian lands. The BIA is directly responsible for about 44% of this total road system serving Indian tribes. About 5% are tribal roads and the other half are other federal roads and state and county roads. Within the BIA road system, 22,000 miles of roads, only 11% of the paved roads are rated as being in good condition. Of the unpaved roads, 90% are known to be in poor condition. None of the BIA unpaved roads are rated as being in good condition. Since 1982, the Highway Trust Fund has been the primary source of funds for the design and construction of BIA roads serving Indian tribes. In the mid-1980's this funding was about $100 million per year; it fell to about $80 million per year in the late-1980's; and with the advent of ISTEA I, Indian Reservation Roads have been funded at $191 million per year. Now that Welfare Reform is a reality, it is more imperative than ever to help create Indian reservation-based employment opportunities. ISTEA funding has become the primary source of road planning and construction in Indian Country. In addition to direct employment opportunities, ISTEA funds provide an essential component of community infrastructure development. As observed in the Committee Report on S. 1173, Transportation provides the links between businesses, industries and consumers. The national economic benefits of a healthy and reliable Federal investment in transportation infrastructure are well documented. The ability of new businesses to arise in Indian Country is seriously hindered by the current state of their road system. Health and education indicators are also well below national averages. Today's Senate action to increase the Indian Reservation Road program by $50 million per year will add significantly to improving the accessibility of Indian reservations to the benefits of our national economy. On the Navajo reservation, annual funding is likely to increase from about $55 million to over $65 million. On Pueblo lands in New Mexico, funding will increase from about $12 million to $15 million. I am pleased that the full Senate preserved this important funding increase for Indian reservation roads to $250 million per year, from $200 million per year, as originally proposed by the Environment and Public Works Committee, and from $191 million per year under current law. Another significant change in this legislation is the national priority system for Indian reservation bridges. Rather than allocate a small percentage of bridge funds from each of the fifty states for use within those states, we now have a single national Indian bridge program that will target the most deficient bridges for early repair or replacement. I thank Chairman Chafee and Ranking Member Baucus for their assistance in adding significant funding for the Indian Reservation Road Program and creating a simpler Indian bridge program.