Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Peter Lyons, a fellow in our office, during debate on the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill which authorizes the expansion of the Hubbard Museum of the American West in Lincoln County, NM. Specifically, this bill would allow the Secretary of Interior to make a grant of up to $4.5 million dollars to cover the Federal share of the museum's expansion. The Hubbard Museum of the American West has been serving the public since 1993. Opened that year under the name of The Museum of the Horse, the museum welcomed 25,000 visitors in its first full year of operations. Current annual attendance is 130,000 visitors at three locations and one special event within Lincoln County. As attendance and programs have grown, the museum no longer has the space or facilities to meet the needs of expanded exhibitions and programs. In addition, the Hubbard museum's recent affiliation with the Smithsonian Institute allows the museum to receive artifacts and other collections from the Smithsonian that can be exhibited for the benefit of the public. The Hubbard museum cannot fully serve the visitors or expand its exhibitions and programs without additional space. The Hubbard Museum of the American West seeks to dramatically expand its facility in order to increase tourism and job development in Lincoln County, NM. This expansion will allow the museum to fully take advantage of its affiliate status with the Smithsonian, address additional needs for collection storage and collection preservation, through climate control, and will provide permanent jobs for an economically challenged region. Early estimates indicate that the project will bring 25 short-term construction jobs and 15 full time museum jobs to Lincoln County. In addition, the expanded tourist attraction will allow an estimated 100 additional jobs to be created throughout the community. Lincoln County is consistently ranked in the bottom third for income levels in New Mexico, a State that is ranked at the bottom of most income level charts. The citizens of Lincoln and northern Otero counties include Native American, Hispanic Americans, and Anglo- American ethnic groups. It is estimated that one third of the new museum employees will come from each of these ethnic groups. Of special concern is the hiring of a Native American who will act as a curator for the extensive Native American artifacts that the museum owns and cares for. The museum also plans to add Hispanic staff members to its visitor services division as Spanish speaking visitors make up an estimated 20 percent of the annual visitation. Additionally, the museum plans to work with the New Mexico Department of Labor to identify individuals who can be brought off welfare or less meaningful employment to work for the museum. The Hubbard Museum has a long history of providing free consulting and operating help to museums and not-for-profit organizations in Lincoln County. It is a true asset and I am pleased to introduce a bill that will help continue these worthwhile efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill which authorizes the expansion of the Hubbard Museum of the American West in Lincoln County, NM. Specifically, this bill would allow the Secretary of Interior to make a grant of up to $4.5 million dollars to cover the Federal share of the museum's expansion. The Hubbard Museum of the American West has been serving the public since 1993. Opened that year under the name of The Museum of the Horse, the museum welcomed 25,000 visitors in its first full year of operations. Current annual attendance is 130,000 visitors at three locations and one special event within Lincoln County. As attendance and programs have grown, the museum no longer has the space or facilities to meet the needs of expanded exhibitions and programs. In addition, the Hubbard museum's recent affiliation with the Smithsonian Institute allows the museum to receive artifacts and other collections from the Smithsonian that can be exhibited for the benefit of the public. The Hubbard museum cannot fully serve the visitors or expand its exhibitions and programs without additional space. The Hubbard Museum of the American West seeks to dramatically expand its facility in order to increase tourism and job development in Lincoln County, NM. This expansion will allow the museum to fully take advantage of its affiliate status with the Smithsonian, address additional needs for collection storage and collection preservation, through climate control, and will provide permanent jobs for an economically challenged region. Early estimates indicate that the project will bring 25 short-term construction jobs and 15 full time museum jobs to Lincoln County. In addition, the expanded tourist attraction will allow an estimated 100 additional jobs to be created throughout the community. Lincoln County is consistently ranked in the bottom third for income levels in New Mexico, a State that is ranked at the bottom of most income level charts. The citizens of Lincoln and northern Otero counties include Native American, Hispanic Americans, and Anglo- American ethnic groups. It is estimated that one third of the new museum employees will come from each of these ethnic groups. Of special concern is the hiring of a Native American who will act as a curator for the extensive Native American artifacts that the museum owns and cares for. The museum also plans to add Hispanic staff members to its visitor services division as Spanish speaking visitors make up an estimated 20 percent of the annual visitation. Additionally, the museum plans to work with the New Mexico Department of Labor to identify individuals who can be brought off welfare or less meaningful employment to work for the museum. The Hubbard Museum has a long history of providing free consulting and operating help to museums and not-for-profit organizations in Lincoln County. It is a true asset and I am pleased to introduce a bill that will help continue these worthwhile efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last year I introduced a bill that would have designated the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. When I introduced that bill, we were waiting for the Administration to complete its work on a final study. Additionally, Senator Campbell wrote a personal note to me asking that I work with him on a new bill that incorporates the new study. Today, we introduce that bill. As with my original bill this legislation will amend the National Trails System Act and designate the Old Spanish Trail; which originates in Santa Fe, New Mexico and continues to Los Angeles, California as a National Historic Trail. Today, more than 150 years after the first settlers embarked on their western journeys via the Old Spanish Trail, we honor its historic significance and recognize its importance to our past, present and future. I am proud to introduce legislation that will help preserve the route of the trail--much of which has remained relatively unchanged since the trail period. The United States of America has a rich history and an exciting part of that is the movement of civilization westward. Citizens who settled in the West came from all walks of life and have deep rooted cultural and historic ties to land throughout the west. Since 1829, The Old Spanish Trail has served many, from trade caravans to military expeditions. For twenty plus years the Old Spanish Trail was used as a main route of travel between New Mexico and California. The Old Spanish Trail is also a vital part of Native American history. We know that numerous Indian pueblos were situated along the Old Spanish Trail serving as trading forums for the trail's many travelers. The majority of these pueblos are still occupied by descendants whose ancestors contributed to the labor and goods that constituted commerce on the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail is a symbol of cultural interaction between various ethnic groups and nations. Further, it is a symbol of the commercial exchange that made development and growth popular, not only in the West, but throughout the country. The National Trails System was established by the National Trails System Act of 1968 ``to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' Designating the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail would allow for just what the act has intended, preservation, access, enjoyment and appreciation of the historic resources of our Nation. The Old Spanish Trail has been significant in many respects to many different people and its rich history is something that should be included in our National Trails System. The intent of this legislation is to protect this historic route and its historic remnants for public use and enjoyment indefinitely.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, once again, as was that case last November, the Senate today must consider a measure that comes to us as a result of the recession. S.J. Res. 31 is an automatic resolution, required to be introduced by the majority leader and considered by the Budget Committee and the Senate under expedited procedures. The resolution is automatic when the Congressional Budget Office notifies the Congress of an economic slowdown. On January 30, the Department of Commerce's advance report on real economic growth, showed the economy in the fourth quarter grew at an annual rate of 2 tenths of a percent. In the third quarter the economy shrank at an annual rate of 1.3 percent. This report triggered the CBO notification of low-growth, and subsequently triggered the introduction of the resolution before us today. The provision in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985--sometimes referred to as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act-- that necessitated the reporting of this resolution, was simply that we did not want to be initiating major spending cuts in a time of recession. I might add that the same section of that law that suspends spending cuts in the time of recessions also covers events of war. S.J. Res. 31 was reported unfavorably from the Budget Committee yesterday. The committee is required to report the resolution without amendment or be discharged without comment. Again, I concurred with the chairman that the committee should express its disfavor with the Resolution, to send a signal to the full Senate to disapprove it. I ask the Senate to join the chairman, Budget Committee, and me on disapproving the resolution. If this resolution were somehow to make it to the President for his signature, which he would not sign, it would effectively eliminate all fiscal discipline, all the enforcement tools we have here in the Congress all the way through September 2003. I do not think we need to take such drastic action. Having taken this position on a bipartisan basis, however, does not mean that we should not act to address both the economic slow down and the war on terrorism. We should and we must. Having said that, the business sector was the focus of the economic weakness in the fourth quarter--as it has been throughout the recession. Businesses reduced inventories at a very rapid pace and decreased investment in new plant and equipment. These factors were such a drag on economic growth that had it not been for a large increase in government purchases, GDP would have been negative in the fourth quarter. However, the outlook for economic growth this year is becoming increasingly positive. This morning the Labor Department reported that initial claims for unemployment insurance dropped last week to the lowest level since August. Claims are down 26 percent since the peak in October. Businesses may not be adding workers and the unemployment rate may continue to rise a bit from here, but the pace of layoffs has slowed. The inventory cycle, productivity, monetary policy, and fiscal policy all suggest better growth this year. Having decreased inventories by more than $70 billion in 2001, business have more room to make purchases in the months ahead. Remarkably, it seems no one told productivity that we had a recession. Productivity growth averaged more than 2 percent during the recession and it usually increases rapidly during recoveries. With short-term interest rates at 1.75 percent, monetary policy is loose. Lower energy prices should contribute to growth this year. And, although I wish we could agree on additional policies to stimulate growth, the tax cut we enacted last year will boost the economy this year. The tools of fiscal discipline must be contained so we can convey to the American public and the markets that we are keeping an eye not only on the current challenges we face, but also those longer term challenges. We must maintain the provisions of the Budget Act that provide us with that future discipline, and we must deal with both tax and spending legislation today while waiving the Budget Act on a case by case basis as needed. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to approach this issue on a bipartisan basis and I join with him in recommending that the full Senate now reject this resolution when it votes later today.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last year I introduced a bill that would have designated the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. When I introduced that bill, we were waiting for the Administration to complete its work on a final study. Additionally, Senator Campbell wrote a personal note to me asking that I work with him on a new bill that incorporates the new study. Today, we introduce that bill. As with my original bill this legislation will amend the National Trails System Act and designate the Old Spanish Trail; which originates in Santa Fe, New Mexico and continues to Los Angeles, California as a National Historic Trail. Today, more than 150 years after the first settlers embarked on their western journeys via the Old Spanish Trail, we honor its historic significance and recognize its importance to our past, present and future. I am proud to introduce legislation that will help preserve the route of the trail--much of which has remained relatively unchanged since the trail period. The United States of America has a rich history and an exciting part of that is the movement of civilization westward. Citizens who settled in the West came from all walks of life and have deep rooted cultural and historic ties to land throughout the west. Since 1829, The Old Spanish Trail has served many, from trade caravans to military expeditions. For twenty plus years the Old Spanish Trail was used as a main route of travel between New Mexico and California. The Old Spanish Trail is also a vital part of Native American history. We know that numerous Indian pueblos were situated along the Old Spanish Trail serving as trading forums for the trail's many travelers. The majority of these pueblos are still occupied by descendants whose ancestors contributed to the labor and goods that constituted commerce on the Old Spanish Trail. The Old Spanish Trail is a symbol of cultural interaction between various ethnic groups and nations. Further, it is a symbol of the commercial exchange that made development and growth popular, not only in the West, but throughout the country. The National Trails System was established by the National Trails System Act of 1968 ``to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' Designating the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail would allow for just what the act has intended, preservation, access, enjoyment and appreciation of the historic resources of our Nation. The Old Spanish Trail has been significant in many respects to many different people and its rich history is something that should be included in our National Trails System. The intent of this legislation is to protect this historic route and its historic remnants for public use and enjoyment indefinitely.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water laws are always an issue of great concern. However, they are of even greater concern in this day and age--especially in the West. This was so evident late last night and this morning when a deal was struck that relieves much of the West from participating in the Reid-Bingaman Water Conservation Program, but effectively sends New Mexico water down the river. All Western Senators, whose States are in much the same situation as New Mexico, opposed the Reid-Bingaman amendment. I came to the floor today and learned that in an attempt to keep this ill-conceived program alive, all Western States with the exception of five--Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, California, and Washington--were exempted. This was an attempt to get most of the Western Senators who oppose this program from voting against it in its entirety. I was not consulted about New Mexico being allowed to drop out like other Western States because apparently Senator Bingaman wanted to keep New Mexico in the program--a program that is vehemently opposed by the New Mexico Cattle Growers, the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, the New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., the New Mexico Public Lands Council, the Dairy Producers of New Mexico, the Arizona and New Mexico Coalition of Counties, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, and the Carlsbad Irrigation District. Major policy changes with regard to State water issues should be considered carefully. The Reid-Bingaman proposal has never been the subject of a hearing. My staff has been given at least six drafts of this language--a sign that this should be introduced as legislation, referred to committee, and then brought to the Senate with the benefit of committee review. The Reid-Bingaman proposal is a State program only in appearance-- especially for those Western States who are reclamation States, such as New Mexico. There are many questions left unanswered when it comes to reconciling the Reid-Bingaman program with Federal Reclamation law. For example, does the entity that holds water rights in a reclamation project mean the Secretary of the Interior, the irrigation district or the individual landowner who receives the water under contract with the irrigation district? Is this relationship altered if the land is under a management contract or is leased in accordance with reclamation law? Do all of these parties have to agree? If one landowner enters into an agreement, what happens to the repayment obligations of the irrigation district? Can the irrigation district be forced to transfer water outside district boundaries by the landowner? Another problem with the Reid-Bingaman program is that it allows the Secretary or a State to use condemnation powers under other authority to further the purposes of this program. I see nothing in this language that prevents either the Federal Government or a State from extorting compliance and eligibility. It is evident from the comments spoken on the floor of the U.S. Senate that the clear objective of this program is to take water from farmers for urban needs by laundering water for conservation. The Reid-Bingaman program requires that States have a program to protect in stream flows. New Mexico does not have such a program and states that do have a program may not have as comprehensive a program as the sponsors of this amendment want. The New Mexico legislature has previously defeated legislation that would create any type of water bank or similar program. State water laws--especially in the West--are all different. Yet, the thrust of this program seems to be forcing states to conform their water laws into some Federal mold. Additionally, the Reid-Bingaman amendment allows for the transfer of water to a ``designee of the State.'' That could be a third party. Presumably, one could be ordered to transfer rights to an urban area or private group or individual. It is not completely clear, but it seems that state water law, especially as it applies to junior appropriators is being preempted. The ``savings'' clause in this amendment is too limited. It does not preserve any limitations under other Federal law, nor does it clearly preserve interstate compacts, treaties and the myriad of regulations that define interstate streams. Finally, I have heard many claim that this program is strictly voluntary. It is voluntary on its face only. The language is drafted to read that anyone who participates is ``willing.'' That is part of what is wrong in the West. We don't have enough water and people do not want to give up what little of this resource they have. If there were willing sellers out in New Mexico, all of the groups I mentioned above would not oppose the Reid-Bingaman program.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I note I was not here yesterday, nor was I in the Senate this morning. So I did not get to work on the amendment that my good friend from Nevada is offering in which he wants to change one word. I note all States similar to New Mexico have been exempt. I do not understand why Senator Bingaman went along with the amendment. States in similar water situations--New Mexico, Idaho, California, Oregon, and Washington--are all excluded. Senator Bingaman has concurred that we be in it and that is why he is going to be for the amendment. I think that is a mistake for New Mexico. I wish I had more time to try to convince him and the Senate, but we are now going to vote to include New Mexico while the other Rocky Mountain States made a deal to be excluded, and our Senator is going along with them, without my understanding because I just arrived this morning. I have no further reservation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask that testimony inserted into the Budget Committee record from Richard J. Santos, the National Commander of the American Legion, be printed in the Record. The testimony follows. Written Statement of Richard J. Santos, National Commander, the American Legion to the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate Concerning the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Budget Resolution Mr. Chairman and Members of the Budget Committee: The American Legion welcomes the opportunity to present its views on the FY 2003 Budget Resolution. As you and your colleagues consider the President's recent budget request, I share the views of the nation's largest wartime veterans' service organization. The American Legion's reputation as an advocate for maintaining a strong national defense is well documented, dating back to its very beginning in 1919 in Paris, France. As veterans of the War to End All Wars, The American Legion founders established an organization: To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; To maintain law and order; To foster and perpetuate a one-hundred percent Americanism; To preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great Wars; To inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state, and nation; To combat autocracy of both the classes and the masses; To make right the master of might; To promote peace and good will on earth; To safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy; To consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness. The only common bond of all Legionnaires is honorable military service during a period of armed conflict. Legionnaires are men and women that belong to an organization based upon comradeship. This group of veterans is devoted to fair and equitable treatment of their fellow veterans, especially the service-connected disabled. Another group of veterans honored by The American Legion is those fallen comrades that are killed in action (KIA), missing in action (MIA), or those held as prisoner of war (POW). These service members often leave spouses and children behind. For those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, The American Legion will honor their service by making sure this nation fulfills its promises to their survivors. For those listed as MIA or POW, The American Legion will continue to demand the fullest possible accounting of each and every comrade.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I recognize the retirement of a dedicated public servant and to thank her for her contributions to our Nation. Since 1998, Eleanor S. Towns has been the Regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service's Southwest Region located in Albuquerque, NM, and in that capacity, has been responsible for the management of 22 million acres of National Forests in the Southwest. Eleanor Towns brought to her work a rich and diversified educational background and varied work experiences. Born in Rockford, IL, she received her undergraduate education at the University of Illinois, graduating in 1965 with an A.B. in communications. She received her master's in guidance & counseling from the University of New Mexico in 1968, and her juris doctor from the University of Denver College of Law in 1982. She worked with the Bureau of Land Management before transferring to the Forest Service in 1978 as Director of Civil Rights in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver. She held progressively more responsible positions before becoming the Rocky Mountain Region's Director of Lands, Water, Soils and Minerals in 1994. In 1995, she was admitted to the Federal Senior Executive Service and assumed the position of Forest Service Director of Lands in Washington. In April 1998, she was promoted to Regional Forester for the Southwest Region. My office has had the pleasure of working with Eleanor Towns since her arrival at regional headquarters in Albuquerque. Despite deteriorating facilities when she first arrived, a situation that has since been rectified, she remained attentive to the multiple issues of concern to New Mexico and the Forest Service. Whatever the complex and contentious area of public land stewardship, I have found her to be professional, responsive and decisive. For example, she gave our office tremendous help during the creation of the Valles Caldera National Preserve and the development of what we called the ``Happy Forests'' legislation. Throughout her Federal career, Eleanor Towns was an effective manager of critically important program areas, and was often called upon to tackle some of the more difficult problems of the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service, including western water rights and employee discrimination cases. Her greatest assets have been her interpersonal skills. Known as ``Ellie'' to her friends and colleagues, she was a bridge builder--between management and employees, between the government and the public, and among divergent interest groups. Her qualities of good humor, common sense, adroit communication skills, coupled with technical expertise, have made her one of the most effective managers in the Federal Civil Service. Our Nation and its resources are the better because of Eleanor Towns, and the Forest Service is a more effective organization. On behalf of the Senate, I want to thank her for her service to the Nation and wish her and her family all the best in retirement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join the people of Albuquerque, NM, in mourning the loss of Thomas J. Clear, Jr. He helped to establish a better way of life for his family and the people of New Mexico. He was a friend to all. Respected throughout the State, Thomas was known for his friendship and dedication to the things that he loved, his friends and family. He first came to New Mexico as a student at the University of New Mexico where Thomas dedicated his studies to education, but also where he met the love of his life and future wife of 50 years, Iris. After he completed law school, Thomas and Iris again returned to New Mexico in order to begin what would be a long and dedicated legal career serving the people of New Mexico. Friends say that Thomas was able to serve New Mexicans so well because he truly cared about their best interests, and he served to protect those interests. He will be remembered for more than just his legal and adversarial roles by the people of New Mexico, he will be known for the love and friendship he provided to all of those who he came in contact with. Thomas died last week surrounded by family and friends, much the same way as he spent his life. He was devoted to the interests of his family and the people of New Mexico. Mr. President, I share the grief of the friends and family of Thomas and my heartfelt condolences go out to them.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James Raymond Toulouse who passed away on January 24, 2002. My heartfelt sympathies go out to his family and friends. James was born in Albuquerque, NM, in 1919, and graduated from Albuquerque High School in 1936. He also graduated from the University of New Mexico in 1940 and received a law degree in 1949 from Georgetown Law School. Prior to entering law school, James served during WW II as a Specialist A Second Class in the United States Navy. His education and dedication to his country served him well during his successful law career. Since 1949, James actively practiced law often representing cases involving civil rights. His work did not go unnoticed. For his work on behalf of the Albuquerque Chapter of the NAACP in 1985, James received their ``Keeping the Dream Alive Award.'' In 1986, the New Mexico Bar Association awarded him the Courageous Advocacy Award. In addition, Rodney Barker in his 1992 book, ``The Broken Circle,'' wrote an account of James' representation of Navajo rights. New Mexico has lost an invaluable native who advocated for the rights of others. I want to take this opportunity to salute the lifetime achievements of James Raymond Toulouse. I join with his family and friends in mourning his loss.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is what it is going to be in 2002 through 2011. The source is the CBO. The facts are pretty easy to understand--the estimates for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The estimate includes both a reduction in taxes and an increase in outlays. That will be in the budget if we choose to do something on the tax side.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 2723. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment and take up the amendment that is at the desk, amendment No. 2723.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I congratulate Roy Stovall for his long career dedicated to civil service. Roy will soon retire from the Bureau of Land Management after 46 years of Government work, 40 years of which were with the Bureau of Land Management. Respected throughout New Mexico for loyal service, Roy has proven to be a successful leader while serving in many different roles. He began his career in Carlsbad, NM as a temporary Carrier with the United States Post Office. Eventually after serving in several positions around the State he found his home in Roswell serving out his career as a Range Management Specialist. He is a member of the Society of Range Management. For his quality work, Roy has received numerous performance awards and praise from co-workers for his achievements. I also applaud the selfless effort Roy has put forth in order to make significant improvements in the quality of life for people of New Mexico and the Nation for almost 50 years. I know that he has made his family and the people of New Mexico proud, and I wish him the same success with his future endeavors in his retirement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since no one is seeking time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the economic stimulus package.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan if I may be a sponsor of the amendment. It is a very exciting amendment that we should be considering today.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to express my sincere disappointment with our seeming inability to consider a stimulus package; that is, a job-creating piece of legislation, for our people. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the last year. My fellow New Mexicans, as do all Americans, want and deserve action on this slowing economy. Let me be very clear. While some would like a different stimulus package than the one the House passed in the early morning hours today, there are alternatives that were considered in this first session. The House-passed bill will provide needed tax relief to millions of working Americans. It will provide tax relief to those individuals who make more than $28,000 and those who file joint returns making more than $46,000. These are not rich people. These are hard-working Americans. Along with provisions to encourage business investment with 30 percent depreciation and extending businesses net operating losses carry back for two years, and increasing expensing provisions for small businesses, the House-passed bill provides nearly $60 billion in tax relief to encourage growth in this weakened economy. Further, addressing many of the concerns raised on the other side of the aisle, the House-passed bill is a significant improvement over an earlier bill in the area of providing needed help to the unemployed and dislocated workers. The House-passed bill provides significant support for those who for reasons they do not control, find themselves without employment this holiday season--all totaled nearly $32 billion would be provided in the form of direct payments to low-income workers, extended unemployment benefits and health insurance assistance. The House-passed bill provides cash payments for those who filed a tax return in 2000 but did not receive a rebate check earlier this year. These payments will be $300 for individuals and $600 for married couples. The House-passed bill provides 13 weeks of extended unemployment insurance going back to those displaced from work from the beginning of this recession last March. And including $8 billion in National Emergency Grants and Emergency Medicaid funding to the states, over $21 billion would be assist individuals and families with their health care costs immediately. The House-passed bill is not perfect. But it is a major improvement over an earlier version, largely because of the input of a group of Senators know as the Centrists here and because of President Bush's willingness to work with them in crafting this package. I hope that we do not let ``one man rule'' prevent us from even having a vote on this bill. We need to pass something. But if we don't assure you I will be the first to be back here in January asking that we consider the ``payroll tax holiday'' proposal. I will take the remaining few minutes and talk to my fellow Senators. Whatever the case and whoever could not reach accord, I believe we have to tell our fellow Americans we did not do them right in the waning days of this session. While Christmas is upon us and good will is everywhere, it is quite obvious the House and Senate, even with the President nudging and participating, did not and will not produce a stimulus package that will get America going again. I wish we would have considered something in the Senate. I believe there was time for us to consider amendments and even vote on a stimulus package. I think that could have been worked out, and we could have passed something. I regret we have not. I say to the leadership in the Senate, they could have done better. While I have great respect and, in some cases, admiration for our leadership, I believe in this case one-man rule prevailed, the Democratic majority leader prevailed. He has what I would call a one-man rule because he can keep us from debating and considering the House-passed measure. He can do that all by himself. That is a very big undertaking by any one Senator, to say we are not going to consider a stimulus package this year in this Senate. That is one-man rule. That is a very big exercise of power. While the Democratic majority leader has a very difficult job in the waning moments because of different ideas and different proposals and obviously some politics, I think we should have done better and he should have done better. I close by saying I proposed, along with about 10 Senators, an idea for a holiday from the Social Security taxes imposed on both employee and employer, to do that for 1 month. Nobody suggested to me that is not a very good stimulus, to put before the American people a month that is picked in the near future to put $42 billion into the hands of every working man and woman and every employer across this land in a rather instant payment to them, or nonpayment to the Government, of Social Security withholding. I believe if we start over with good will, and in a nonpartisan way, when we return because I do not believe the economy will improve and we will be back at this--I urge we consider it at a high enough level to let the country focus on this idea. There is a lot of talk about the negative aspects of it, and most of them are untrue. If we have a chance to get this issue before a committee, or debate it in the Senate, we would have a great starting point to which we could add the social welfare aspects of the unemployment benefits, of some health care coverage, and all the other issues we are talking about. We would have as a basis a single powerful issue that would be building jobs and causing America to take a look and say we know how to do something very positive. So I do not give up. If we are doing nothing, I assume this idea will come back and I assume, when we start thinking about it and analyze it well, it will be high on the agenda. I say to all of my friends in the Senate, they worked very hard. I congratulate them. They worked either as a centrist member of the committee or member of the leadership, put in a lot of time, a lot of effort. I am hopeful even in the last moment it will work and somehow it will come out of the forest and be sitting there for us to look at. If not, then I urge when we come back and consider how we stimulate, that we put this holiday back on the table with all the other things we have been considering. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Did I lose time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Insurance companies will be putting forth the kind of coverage necessary. What a day this will be. What a time that will be. What joy will come to those of us who have worked so hard. But more importantly, what joy will come to the millions of parents who will now see their children, when they probably have the first signs of these dread diseases, and these parents are going to be able to say we are not going to go broke trying to take care of an uninsured child with one of these dread diseases. What a marvelous, wonderful thing America will have done. What do we hear? Over on the side, a dull but powerful beat of the insurance companies that are saying: This hasn't been covered before. Let's not cover it now. We hear a large undercurrent saying: We have never done this before. We should not start now. It is going to cost too much. To them let me say: We hope you will join us when this bill clears both Houses, and when at that point you have to start writing insurance for people who are sick with schizophrenia, manic depression, those kinds of diseases--and there are many other diseases that will be covered. Research will start to take place because these kinds of sick people are carrying on their backs a package of assets, assets that are the payments that will be forthcoming from the sick person running to the doctor, to the clinic, to the research facilities. What a change and how America will have grown up when that occurs. There are a lot of workers in this vineyard. There are thousands upon thousands of Americans who are busy in this field, in their home cities, in their States. Many came to town this past week to show up at the conference meeting where the House and Senate met on this Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Why did they show up? They showed up because the Senate had attached to that bill a thorough covering of these diseases. We knew it was a chance because the House would rather have this considered by another committee, not an appropriations committee. We got our chance to speak a few words. What words were spoken. Clearly, the message did not stay in this little cubicle, Senator Wellstone. The message went out from that room. The message went out that it is the time, it is the place, and it is ready. As a matter of fact, I believe the members there present would have, by overwhelming numbers, voted to take this bill and put it on this appropriations bill and send it to the President for his signature. We made some good things happen. The President of the United States has issued a letter saying next year will be the time. We will hold him to it. He is saying he would like to do that. We know he had a distinguished friend who had depression and committed suicide, and he doesn't have any trouble with the idea of this being a disease, severe depression. It must be treated. Severe depression must have coverage just as the other dread diseases. I have here lately been comparing these dread diseases of the mind with the diseases of the heart. Clearly, we covered heart even though it is part spiritual, part physical. We do not say ``we don't cover that because it is very difficult to diagnose and do research on.'' Thank God we got it together and worked on it. So I understand my time is about to run out. I thank the Chair. I just want to say I am happy again. The tenor and the tone--those who were saying we are going do it were really a different group of people. They are going to have hearings. Where they have not had a single hearing in the House of Representatives on the issue of parity of coverage for American people, we have had numerous hearings here. They have had none. They pledge it. Once they have it, once their Members hear, once their Members are importuned by these citizens to do this, it will move. So I say thanks to Senator Wellstone for all the support and help, and to all those in the Senate--there are many, over 65 on the bill. The pressure from that, the ambience from that, was strong. We will, indeed, next year, be moving ahead with a big strong wave, and it will happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me take a few minutes. First, I rise with a sense of great sadness and yet a feeling of great hope. You really can have both votes in yourself at the same time. Two nights ago Mental Health Equitable Treatment of 2001 was dropped from the Labor-HHS appropriations conference report. The Senate passed a wonderful bill. We sent it to the House as part of Labor appropriations, even though it was a major, major authorizing bill. We had our hopes high because in the Senate the support was high. The time had come to make sure, 2 years from now in the United States, most insurance policies would cover the mentally ill. That meant to this Senator in 8 or 10 years we would be able to look back and see a very different America when it came to street people, people who during cold winter months we see on the grates of our cities with the blankets wrapped around them. In our jails and prisons, we know that now and for the ensuing months those who have mental illnesses such as distress that comes from depression, manic depression, schizophrenia, and a whole host of serious mental diseases, are more apt to be found in the county jail or the State jail than they are in treatment centers, be they treatment centers to which you take your sick person, and they are run privately or publicly. More mentally ill people, men and women, are in jails and facilities not intended for them than there are in facilities intended for them. We in the Senate, with the leadership and help of my friend, Senator Wellstone, have a bill. We call it the Domenici-Wellstone bill. It is moving right along. It cleared the Senate, sending a powerful signal to those in America by the millions who are sick with these diseases, their relatives, and their friends. They had an extremely high hope that ran through their bodies and in many cases gave them a superb ray of hope that maybe, in the future in the greatest land on Earth, we would have insurance--subject to some limitations and some exclusions, but across this land the large businesses would be offering insurance coverage for those who were mentally ill who worked for them; that we would begin to see the same thing happen there that has happened to people with heart conditions. We would have doctors taking care of them. We would have research taking place. We would have centers and facilities for research and for care growing up across this land, public or private. We know that would be happening. Sure enough, we could cast our eyes, cast our vision not too far ahead of us, and say we are doing the right thing, serious mental illness is going to receive treatment. I ask consent I have 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee, I greatly appreciate the comments he made with reference to both character education and the issue of our schools integrating mental health systems that are operating outside the schools but should be in the schools. That is on page 434. I am very pleased it was added. I offered this issue as an amendment and turned it into a grant program that is modeled after the language of an amendment. It is going to go a long way toward using the community's mental health resources to help public school children who have mental health problems. Second, I thank Senator Dodd who spoke a moment ago about his and my involvement in a program that involves character education. My colleagues will remember when I first talked about it in this Chamber, Senator Sam Nunn joined me and then Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd fell immediately into succession when Senator Nunn left, and it became known as the Domenici-Dodd approach in the Senate. The Senator from Connecticut found some exciting ways to do this in his State. So have I. One of the most exciting things I have done in education is visit schools with character education as part of their program, with the voluntarism it brings to bear and the wonderful feeling it gives to children and teachers to know in their regular education they are also learning what the word ``responsibility'' means, what the word ``trustworthiness'' means, which essentially is: You should not lie; you should live up to contracts and agreements. And there are other programs that are part of the character counts approach. These are used to get children excited about character and the principle attributes that make somebody a person of character. We all know that is very important, and I am very thrilled to have been part of that over the years. It is working in so many States. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership. I will work now on the appropriations to see if we can get the full $25 million. This is authorized, but we have to get it appropriated. That is a small amount. Everybody should know the reason it is small is we do not tell anybody how to do this part of education. We merely offer money to them for centers or resource-based facilities so they can pass on the word and the tools to various teachers and organizations. We want character counts taught by teachers at the local level, using local people to implement it. Nonetheless, walk into a classroom of sixth graders and see that this month is the month of responsibility. See the walls loaded with posters about responsibility, and then sit down with them while they talk about responsibility. Then go to the class reunion which they do once a month. They make the awards themselves for those who have been most responsive, for those who have been most trustworthy, for those who have been best in their citizenship. It is exciting, it is moving, it is very positive, and rather fantastic, because one might say we have been spending a lot of money and trying a lot of things. We have remained rather constant in one way of doing it for almost 40 years. Essentially, we changed it only in that we pushed for more resources in that 40-year approach. I might say the time was ripe for change, and this President made it part of his effort. As a matter of fact, it probably can be said that only because he has pursued it as he has have we finally produced an education bill that is significantly different and has significantly different qualities and characteristics about it than we have ever had before. I want to, in my own way, tick off a few of them. First of all, I am pleased that in addition to character education expansion, better mental health coordination, and teacher recruitment centers are in this bill. I introduced an amendment in that regard, too, and that is going to be very helpful because, if anything, we know we are not paying our teachers enough and that movement of paying more is catching up State by State. We need to help our teachers be better teachers because the fact is, we know in many instances they need help and they need to be better educated, especially in the specialities that will make these students better and more well rounded, better at math and science and technology. In addition, in educational funding this bill authorizes significantly more money. We are very hopeful the appropriators will come close. The amount this bill authorizes is $26.3 billion, and that is dramatically up from last year. The other thing that is new and different is enhancing accountability and demanding results. There were many who questioned that, but in a sense what has come out in the conference is good. It is good in that it requires report cards on school performance. States using Federal dollars must show success on an annual reading and math assessment for students of third grade through the eighth. Four hundred million dollars is authorized to help the States administer this new approach. There were some who were saying they will not have enough money to put this into effect. That was cut through and some extra resources were given so they can do what is necessary to enhance the accountability and prove there are results. We have unprecedented State and local flexibility. That is contentious nonetheless because there are some who do not want to do that. They want the Federal Government to remain in charge. Compromises were forthcoming, but we might say we are going to be trying unprecedented State and local flexibility, not as much as some want but more than some wanted in this area. I think the compromise is going to prove in 2 or 3 years that we probably ought to give even more flexibility to the State and local people. We have streamlined bureaucracy and reduced red tape in the process of putting programs together. We have made 45 programs out of 55, and then we have given a certain number of districts an option to opt out of the Federal program and opt into one with pure flexibility. We do not do that for everyone because some are very frightened about what might happen. But I think we allow approximately 150 schools to voluntarily pull out from the details, spend the money on the ideas, and see which comes out better 3 or 4 or 5 years from now in terms of student and teacher education. We have expanded parent choices. Children in failing schools are going to be allowed to transfer to better performing schools or to charter schools immediately after a school is identified as failing. I do not know whether that is going to work. We all know that is a difficult concept. We do not know in some parts whether there are going to be enough schools for them to transfer to. Nonetheless, this certainly sets the stage and sets a standard that the United States ought to give parents more choice if parents are willing to be part of it, help with transportation and other things. Then we go into reading where for the first time we have a very major change in that almost a billion dollars is authorized for reading. That is very exciting. I hope they fund the appropriations. In Early Reading First Program, there is some money, asking that it be part of the Federal program, and then it lays the groundwork for important reforms in special education. It has already been said we did not move totally to mandatory funding of that program that we are so concerned about, a program called IDEA, but we are moving toward more funding rather than less. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Judd Gregg, is in the Chamber. He is the one who pushed the Congress more adequately fund IDEA. We started about 5 years with him pursuing this, and for the first time in the history of IDEA, special education, we started to fund it at higher levels. In this bill, we move even more in the direction of seeing to it that schools are not overburdened because the Federal Government puts more money into this program. We have something in this bill to make schools safer, something for English fluency, and we have some special safeguards regarding rural schools. That is exciting, and that means we have concern that the regular programs that exist in a city such as Albuquerque might not work in a school district in Deming, NM, which is considerably smaller and very rural. So I hope when we are finished, the President will sign this bill, and I hope he takes some credit for it because, indeed, he deserves substantial credit for it, as do a number of Senators, including Senator Kennedy, clearly, as the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, and many others. I am not on the committee, but I do a little bit because I am genuinely interested and concerned, and I think we have added some special ideas to this bill. I want to thank those Members who allowed those ideas to find their way into this bill, and clearly our next step is to see how much the appropriators are going to appropriate. This is an authorizing bill. It must be funded. I hope in the next week we will know, and we will be telling the appropriators that we have praise for their work because the most important aspects of this bill would have been funded by them in the health and human services appropriations bill. I thank the Senator for yielding me time, and I yield the floor.