Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with genuine regret that I learned about the planned departure of Dr. Steven Hyman as Director of the National Institute of Mental Health at the NIH. Steve is a Harvard- trained psychiatrist and neuroscientist who has impressed me with his deep understanding that mental illnesses are very real disturbances occurring in the brain, the most complex structure in the known universe. Steve used his expertise as a scientist, along with his remarkable ability to make science readily understandable to lay persons, to convey a simple but profound message to us and to the American public, that there is no scientific or medical justification for treating mental illnesses differently than any other illness. Dr. Hyman has been at the helm of NIMH with a commitment to encouraging and supporting the basic research that will enable us to develop exciting new treatments, based on an understanding of the disease process itself. Although our current treatments get increasingly better, they are not perfect, they need to be more targeted and rational because as good as these treatments are, those with mental illness desperately need treatments that are more effective. We need to know how these medications are going to work in patients living in the real world, with real work problems because people suffering from severe mental illness often have very complex complicating factors that contribute to the mental illness. I want to express my sincere appreciation for Steve Hyman's forceful voice of reason, explaining patiently and constantly that, while we don't understand mental illness completely, thanks to magnificent new technology and scientific knowledge, the brain is unlocking its secrets, and the future is bright. This, in turn, I believe has helped convince our colleagues, and the American public--that there must be parity for mental health now. Steve will be missed, but he has accomplished much during his tenure at the National Institute of Mental Health; his success in bringing research on mental disorders to the forefront of public consciousness will be a strong foundation that his successor must build upon. Nancy and I wish Steve and his family great success and happiness as he begins his new duties as Provost at Harvard University. a transition for one of our nation's foremost mental health leaders

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I say to the occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from New Jersey, when he came to the Senate he brought with him a rather distinguished career in investment banking, as I understand it, with a specialization in bonds. Whatever the case may be, he brought with him a tremendous expertise with reference to the American economy. Therefore, it makes me doubly proud that the idea many people suggested to me, that ends up being called a Social Security withholding tax holiday for 1 month, is supported by the occupant of the chair, because I give a lot of credit to somebody who comes to the Senate from the business world, talks with the business world, talks with labor union people and comes up with an analysis of what will, indeed, be the best economic stimulus of those that have been presented that could be adopted before Christmas and be effective, regardless of the arguments, during the next 4 to 5 months. It clearly could be in full effect. First, those who have supported me from the standpoint of business are in pretty good company. So whatever we hear from some, that this cannot be implemented and that maybe it is not a good idea, let me introduce a letter which I received on November 30. It is a very current letter. It is from the Business Roundtable. Now, the Business Roundtable has a lot of American business members. This letter comes from the president, John Castellani--good Italian American name. We had not spoken in advance of my amendment, but this letter, so everybody will know, is an unequivocal enforcement of the holiday as being the best economic stimulus and the best news to provide confidence in the American people and that will move the economy ahead in terms of what it needs to give it a jump start in these very difficult times. We all know we ought to do two big things. One, we ought to pay for all the military needs of our country in a very good appropriations bill. The President has told us what he needs. We need to do that. I understand it will be done next week. That is good. The other thing we have to do is pass a stimulus package. We do not have to pass a package that has a ``stimulus'' label on it. We have to pass one that could be sent out to the business community, to the others who know what is happening in the American marketplace, and ask them, will this actually stimulate the economy? Then we could say ``stimulus,'' and those who know say it will stimulate. It is not a bill to meet a commitment. This letter ends up saying, because there are some who say it will take too long, I say to the occupant of the chair, to implement, that some express concern about the ability of companies as a practical matter to implement this on short notice. We have surveyed our companies to see how quickly the payroll reduction could be implemented. These companies, some of the Nation's largest employers, have said it would be implemented in a range of a couple of days to a maximum of 3 weeks if it is kept simple. We have some leeway as to how to implement that holiday. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. I hope those talking will at least put this letter among the things they consider in terms of the reality of the impact on the American consumer, the American buyer and seller, the American worker, and the American employer. This says an awful lot about many employed people. I don't know how many million American employees are represented by this group, but it is an awful lot. Having said that, I understand there is some concern about the Social Security recipients of our country. Nobody will disagree the best thing for the Social Security trust fund and the best thing for you, Social Security recipients of the future, is for this economy to get going sooner rather than later. If we had a little time, we could debate and show graphs about what will happen to Social Security if this American economy stays in the tank for another year or for 2 years and what will happen if it comes out in 6 months. If we can get it out quick and get it growing, every Social Security recipient of today and those planning on it in the future will know the best thing we can do is pass the stimulus package. That will start the economy. There is no harm to the Social Security trust fund. We are already using it because we are in the red. All we are saying is, as soon as we take it out, we replenish it, day by day, hour by hour, and nothing can happen to the fund. If you want to talk about protecting it, that is all well and good, but the reality is the best way to protect it is to do it and pass this stimulus. That will help the Social Security recipients the most. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to compliment the Republican leader. I am speaking in terms of what I see him doing today. The Republican leader has concluded that for some reason the Democratic leader wants to take the economic stimulus package away from the Senate. Instead of continuing with it, if it is as important as everyone says, we have a whole new piece of legislation requiring very lengthy debate when, as a matter of fact, whether you are for it or against it, it can be done in due course. It need not be done today or the day after tomorrow or next week. As a matter of fact, it could be done as the first or second item of business next year, and it would make no difference whatsoever. Instead, what will make a difference, in addition to taking care of our troops--and our military in every respect will soon get an appropriations bill; if nothing else happens, that will happen; that issue is going to be taken care of, that big commitment--the second and equally as important commitment is to stimulate the American economy so that the working men and women who are unemployed can look out there at America and say: They are hiring people back. We were just reading the new statistics and instead of 800,000 jobs lost, we have an increased 250,000 or 300,000. We are on the way up, so that everyone who participates in this economy, from the smallest equity owner and the smallest employee in the American free enterprise system to a highly paid high-tech employee--so that they can all receive encouragement from their Government to spend, to buy things they might need. A very simple way to do it, along with the wonderful ideas that have been worked out heretofore by Senators on both sides of the aisle--I will speak for the way you get money into the hands and pockets of American working men and women and their employers. That is called the payroll tax holiday. Perhaps it would be fairer to call that the Domenici piece and say that is what my amendment was trying to do. The other items our distinguished minority leader brought forward are part of the various stimulus packages that have been discussed. Some are in the centrist package wherein one of the leaders was Olympia Snowe coming up with some of these great ideas. They are hers. They are centrist Senators. Some of them--not too many--are in the Democratic bill that is pending that would be replaced. But there are not very many that are comparable; there are a few. It is absolutely imperative that we ask honestly and forthrightly of those who know the American economy what will do the most good to put America back to work. The best social program in the world remains even today a good, solid job. There is no social welfare program in America that comes anywhere close to that. People who get good jobs, steady jobs, steady paychecks, for the most part have health insurance and the like. So what is the best thing for American working men and women with children and families and who want to buy a car so they can start going to the mountains or taking their children out camping, whatever it may be? For them to have confidence in the economy and have money to spend; you can't beat those two in America. If you can find confidence in the American people and money in their pockets, you have a vibrant American economy. You can't have everybody employed because that does not work in our system. But we were down to 3.9 percent unemployment for a significant period of time. Everybody was very thrilled. Yesterday we received an economic evaluation from a very powerful group that said this economic downturn has been of long duration. I myself have spoken in the Chamber monthly or every 6 weeks or so; I said the economy started coming down 13 months ago. That is now verified by experts. It started then. I also kept saying, don't argue about the word ``recession'' or is it there yet; it is not good. And if it isn't there yet, it will be there in a couple months. Why don't we get on with doing something to help the economy. Yesterday that same very powerful economic group said we have been in a recession since March. We don't have to argue anymore; we are in a recession. Whether we stay there for a few more months or 6 months or a year is very important. The sooner we can start coming out of it and get closer to neutral, where we are not growing and not going up or down, then we will break out of that and start down the positive track of recovery, which means more jobs, more opportunity, more confidence, and more money in the pockets of our people. Our distinguished Republican leader said to a group of us, we ought to talk about the fact that we don't need to go on to another bill; we ought to stay hitched to the economic recovery plan, the stimulus package, and get it done. I will send to the desk the principal components of the proposal he and I and others have put forth today. It is called ``Amendment to House Stimulus Bill.'' It is there for people to read and puruse. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this would be a $100 billion stimulus in the first year, and if we include the holiday for 1 month, when the American people will begin to see hope, when the paychecks go up, even if it is only for 1 month, and when their employers get to keep 6.2 percent in their treasury to use for other things, what could be better? I urge our Democratic friends to take a look at it. This Senator has talked to many Democrats prior to today about this proposal, maybe as many as 15. As a general matter, most of them thought it was an exciting idea. I will not go beyond that because far be it appropriate for me to characterize it beyond saying they certainly gave me encouragement. I do not believe people are free today to go to meetings and speak their piece because they are all tied up in entanglements of commitments. They have commitments to the old package, to the new package, to the centrist package, to the Democratic package that came out of committee. Unless you can get on board the group that supports one of those, you cannot get a package for America. The lines established for those various groupings in the Senate should disappear, and those who lead them should go to a meeting, be it with the Democratic leader or both leaders, and say: Let's ask the Finance Committee to put forth a bipartisan effort for the next few days. Here are all the issues. They are all boiled down to five or six issues. The rest is detail. I believe if they went there with the right spirit--that we really need to do this, that it is far more important than anything else other than to make sure we appropriate the money needed for our military around the world and at home--we will not let the American people down. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk to be appropriately referred a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Bond and Senator Frist. This is going to be called the payroll tax holiday bill. Mr. President, we have been talking a lot about a war, and we are beginning to read stories about the great valor and the fantastic American military machine, of which the American people ought to be very proud. Clearly, we have, in months and years past, supplied a very large amount of the American tax dollars to provide for adequate defense. This war we have waged for a few weeks against hatred and terrorism--while that war changed us forever, it also showed the world what a tremendous military force America is and what a great idea we have with democracy and capitalism matched up, with growth and prosperity--what a tremendous idea it is. The idea and ideal was received on the streets of cities in Afghanistan with cheering for the few Americans who were part of it. This morning, we hear a communique from one of our military talking about how they are being received. At the same time that we are paying for this and asking for our wonderful volunteer men and women of the military, there is another war, and it is a tough one. It has to do with an economy that for 11 years was at the very peak of performance--almost without comparability in any period of economics that we note here in America. Now that economy, as one might have predicted, is going into one of the normal and natural downturns--except each one of these recessions are different. The qualities are different. What happened to get us there is different. There are also a lot of similarities. If we don't engage in the war that is also on our plate, called recession, in as unified a manner as we attacked the war on terrorism, with a proposal to help the economy, thus help our people--that is, Democrat and Republican--and gather together and say we each, Democrat, Republican, and the White House, have a plan--a lot of Senators have plans. We only had one vote, and it is pretty obvious that the Democrat plan can't muster the 60 votes that is going to be required to get a tax package through the Senate. We all know the vote. The distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has done a yeoman's job in trying to put together a partisan package. I have been there when you had to do that, and then I have had to defend it and try to get it through, with the entire party on the other side being opposed. I have listened and watched and seen this distinguished Senator do his very best. If the Republican plan--which may be the President's plan--is called up, I regret to say that I think it is going to get the same kind of treatment from the other side of the aisle. I can't say why each side has decided that they have a better plan, but that is what has happened. Let's hope that it is nothing more than that and that both sides still wish to get something done, to get an economic stimulus package; that is, a package that will cause America's economy to grow, jump-start, give it a little boost. I am not going to talk about the things that have already been done, other than to say that once the recession started--that is a long time ago; for those who think this just came upon us, if you trace the economy--and I am sure the occupant of the chair, who, for many years of his life, day by day, had to rely upon his ability to analyze the economy and/or that of those who worked for him, and decisions had to be made on the best assumptions you could put together. But it is clear if you look at what happened, this recession started downward about 16 months ago, before the swearing in of the new President. It started down and it has been coming down a little bit at a time for all these months. During that period, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the 12th time, I believe, reduced interest rates. I know if my friend from New Jersey were standing here and we were discussing this issue, we would both be saying that is a very good thing, reducing the interest rates. No question, America relies upon capital for growth, for investment, for everything we put people to work with; you have to have money to buy a house, to buy a car. Incidentally, if anybody wants to know how important interest rates are, look at the anomaly in America today. One of the biggest anomalies is that we are selling more cars than ever. So we are breaking the bank on selling cars in America in the middle of a recession. Well, I guess one could say the people finally woke up and wanted new cars, but I don't think so. I think they have wanted them all along. But guess what. The automobile companies decided it was better to sell cars and finance at zero interest rate and keep people working than it was to go ahead and cut back on production, charge interest rates so the finance companies would be turning a profit, but their factories would be laying off people. What an experiment because their people kept working and producing automobiles, and the rate of finance is zero. They must have analyzed what that does or does not do for their economic picture. But in the end, cars are selling because the cost of buying them is cheap. Now, the economy is still not recovering properly, although somehow-- at least this Senator believes that while I understood what was happening and clearly was out front saying we were moving toward a recession probably 12 months before we started saying it here, I believe there is a real chance if we do something right quick that this economy will start back up. There are some good signs out there, but there are some not so good signs that could indicate it is going to be a long recession. But I am putting before the Senate today a proposal. There are many Senators I have talked to about it. I won't mention their names. But a few of them I thank profusely because they have publicly commented to papers such as the Wall Street Journal, and others; some Democrat Senators who have analyzed it with me have said it is a very good approach. The reason that it is not moving with large numbers of Senators at this point is because everybody has some entanglements--and I use that word not pejorative--in terms of putting the packages together where they have committed here and there and, of course, they can't just jump off those ships, they have to let normal events occur. But this morning, Senator Bond, Senator Frist, and I put this before the Senate and the American people because we truly believe it is something that ought to be looked at. We are not here saying it is absolutely a cinch that it will work. But we are saying--three of us-- with gaining strength today--the Wall Street Journal quotes Dr. Lindsey from the White House. His analysis would indicate that this is a good economic stimulus package. Let me suggest that it is quick, doesn't have any administrative costs associated with it. It helps city, county, States, and private sector, and, indeed, every working man and woman in America who pays payroll tax for Social Security. The 6.2 percent that comes out of their paycheck will stay in their paycheck for whatever month we choose. The legislation is drawn for the month of December, for one month. Likewise, the employer does not remit to the Federal Government; they keep the money. In one month, if the month of December is chosen, I say to my friend from the beautiful State of Montana, $38 billion will go into the American economy via the wage earners and businesses, large and small, in one month. They will have that money close to the Christmas season one way or the other. If we do January, everybody will know it is there. If we do December, it will be in their paychecks. The reason I keep using one or the other month is because we have not moved with dispatch as everybody had hoped. As a consequence, I do not know if we can get it done in time for Christmas relief. It is a very simple bill. It is quick. The economic activities of it are immediate. It eliminates 12.4 percent payroll tax from the OASDI for the month of December; $38 million in immediate relief to be spent for whatever the recipient wants to do with it. Self-employed workers will see their taxes reduced by 12.4 percent in that month. It will be split evenly between the employer and employee at 6.2 percent on each side. Then, obviously, there is language putting the Social Security fund back in its original posture by transferring from the general fund. That accounts for the removal and use in the economy and the replenishment that one would expect. It is very simple. The three of us do this not as a total stimulus package, but for the tax portion that has been discussed by each side as being important. By a strange coincidence, the two provisions that were in the Republican package, the rebate and the 2 percent, the 2-percent marginal rate change, turned out to be $38 billion. This package is $38 billion. It is just a coincidence, but if we are looking for a substitute, we could substitute that money. Whatever the Senate wants to do about workers compensation, hospital and health protection--those are not part of the stimulus package in any event. They are part of us wanting to be helpful because people are hurting. Those can be worked out. Whether we fight over those or not, clearly, eventually, they will be worked out in both bodies. There are a lot of economists who have been analyzing this. We do not have a lot of them here today to talk about, but there are a lot. Perhaps when we return, I will print in the Record an article entitled ``A Stimulus Package May Not Work'' by Joanne Morrison. It cites three or four economists who analyze where we are. I say to my colleagues, there are two arguments against what we are doing. One, it is taking too long, and, two, it will take too long after we pass it. It may be a long-term event rather than a short-term stimulus. Second, without any question, there is serious doubt as to whether the other packages are very stimulative. In both instances, that is corrected here. Is it fair? It seems pretty fair. I am not saying we can solve each and every problem, but it is pretty fair. I have sent the tax bill to the desk. I thank my two cosponsors and the Senator from Montana for letting me present my thoughts on this. There are a lot of people beginning to ask about it and starting to support it. We will put the names of those institutions that support this in the Record as soon as we can. The Governors are coming on board. We have asked no one. They are reading about it now, and we probably will ask a number of other groups in the country to give us their views. I thank the Senate for giving me time. It is nice that debate can occur, but we are not there yet. Maybe a new idea can find its place here. I hope it is new enough to receive the consideration it deserves. Mr. President, we must move forward. Right now, we have a Republican stimulus bill that passed the House. We have the President's plan and the Senate Republicans' plan. We have the Senate Democrats' plan. But we don't yet have a stimulus plan that will pass the Senate and be signed by the President. I believe this bill can be the key to bringing both sides together quickly once we return from the upcoming Thanksgiving week recess. Let me be clear. I support the President. I think this administration is right on track when it comes to an economic stimulus package. However, any existing plan has to be modified to garner enough Senate support to pass. We can't wait till later to get this job done. The administration and Congress have promised to enact a stimulus package. The American people expect a stimulus package. The markets expect a stimulus package. It would be a huge mistake to wait. The retail sales reported yesterday showed sales up 7.1 percent in October. However, this was almost all due to aggressive and unsustainable incentives in the auto sector. In effect, these incentives are shifting auto sales that would have been made next year into this year. The economy is going to be in trouble once these incentives stop. In order to break the impasse and move the process forward, let me describe the bill we have introduced today. We propose a one-month payroll tax holiday, which would replace the current proposals for a supplemental rebate and the speed-up of the marginal rate reductions. I'll tell you why. IRS Commissioner Rossotti has raised administrative issues related to the supplemental rebates. Because of where we are in the calendar, such rebates would have to be folded into the taxpayers' 2001 tax returns and refunds next spring. A payroll tax holiday will be more effective at increasing spending than the rebate checks sent out earlier this year or a new round of rebate checks. It will put the tax cut in paychecks automatically, without the need for special mailings. Psychologically, workers are used to adjusting their spending habits based on the size of their paychecks. At present, workers spend about 95 cents for every dollar of after-tax earnings. Increasing their after-tax earnings will therefore lead to more spending--if they perceive the tax cut to be part of their regular earnings. That's why separate rebate checks don't work as well. When a worker gets a separate rebate check they are more likely to treat it as a special windfall gain and save the money or pay down debt. According to the University of Michigan, as of October, in the midst of a recession, only 30 percent of people receiving rebate checks were saying they would spend the money. The speed-up of the marginal rate reductions up has been criticized as a permanent change in tax law that benefits upper income folks most. The bottom line: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax cut that is very likely to be spent. All wage earners earning below $80,400, even those that don't earn enough to pay income taxes, would benefit. Both the employee and employer share (6.2 percent each) of the social security (OASDI) payroll tax would be suspended. Self-employed social security payroll taxes would also be suspended. The Social Security trust fund would be made whole via a transfer from the general fund. Employees would have more take home pay and employers would have increased cash flow. A school teacher making $40,000 would see an increase in their take- home pay of $207 in December. A self-employed contractor earning $40,000 per year (who pays both the employer and employee share of 12.4 percent) would see an increase in pay of $413. It is most desirable to make the one-month period December 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. A payroll tax holiday in December would be perfectly timed for the holiday shopping season. The whole tax cut would go out in only one month. We wouldn't have to wait for a new round of rebate checks to go out--a process that could take months and interfere with the speed of tax refunds. In addition, in 2001 the payroll tax is applied to income up to $80,400. By December, approximately 6 percent of wage earners have already reached the limit and would not receive the benefit of the payroll tax holiday. The cost of a December holiday is about $38 billion in fiscal 2002. If the holiday were in January, the cost would by about $43 billion, because all wage earners would receive the benefit. Mr. President, we are at an impasse here in the Senate. Let's all admit that neither the Democratic plan nor the President's plan has the requisite 60 votes to pass this Chamber. I believe this proposal could provide us with the key component to reaching a bipartisan way to enact a stimulus bill quickly.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send to the desk to be appropriately referred a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Bond and Senator Frist. This is going to be called the payroll tax holiday bill. Mr. President, we have been talking a lot about a war, and we are beginning to read stories about the great valor and the fantastic American military machine, of which the American people ought to be very proud. Clearly, we have, in months and years past, supplied a very large amount of the American tax dollars to provide for adequate defense. This war we have waged for a few weeks against hatred and terrorism--while that war changed us forever, it also showed the world what a tremendous military force America is and what a great idea we have with democracy and capitalism matched up, with growth and prosperity--what a tremendous idea it is. The idea and ideal was received on the streets of cities in Afghanistan with cheering for the few Americans who were part of it. This morning, we hear a communique from one of our military talking about how they are being received. At the same time that we are paying for this and asking for our wonderful volunteer men and women of the military, there is another war, and it is a tough one. It has to do with an economy that for 11 years was at the very peak of performance--almost without comparability in any period of economics that we note here in America. Now that economy, as one might have predicted, is going into one of the normal and natural downturns--except each one of these recessions are different. The qualities are different. What happened to get us there is different. There are also a lot of similarities. If we don't engage in the war that is also on our plate, called recession, in as unified a manner as we attacked the war on terrorism, with a proposal to help the economy, thus help our people--that is, Democrat and Republican--and gather together and say we each, Democrat, Republican, and the White House, have a plan--a lot of Senators have plans. We only had one vote, and it is pretty obvious that the Democrat plan can't muster the 60 votes that is going to be required to get a tax package through the Senate. We all know the vote. The distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has done a yeoman's job in trying to put together a partisan package. I have been there when you had to do that, and then I have had to defend it and try to get it through, with the entire party on the other side being opposed. I have listened and watched and seen this distinguished Senator do his very best. If the Republican plan--which may be the President's plan--is called up, I regret to say that I think it is going to get the same kind of treatment from the other side of the aisle. I can't say why each side has decided that they have a better plan, but that is what has happened. Let's hope that it is nothing more than that and that both sides still wish to get something done, to get an economic stimulus package; that is, a package that will cause America's economy to grow, jump-start, give it a little boost. I am not going to talk about the things that have already been done, other than to say that once the recession started--that is a long time ago; for those who think this just came upon us, if you trace the economy--and I am sure the occupant of the chair, who, for many years of his life, day by day, had to rely upon his ability to analyze the economy and/or that of those who worked for him, and decisions had to be made on the best assumptions you could put together. But it is clear if you look at what happened, this recession started downward about 16 months ago, before the swearing in of the new President. It started down and it has been coming down a little bit at a time for all these months. During that period, the Federal Reserve Board has, for the 12th time, I believe, reduced interest rates. I know if my friend from New Jersey were standing here and we were discussing this issue, we would both be saying that is a very good thing, reducing the interest rates. No question, America relies upon capital for growth, for investment, for everything we put people to work with; you have to have money to buy a house, to buy a car. Incidentally, if anybody wants to know how important interest rates are, look at the anomaly in America today. One of the biggest anomalies is that we are selling more cars than ever. So we are breaking the bank on selling cars in America in the middle of a recession. Well, I guess one could say the people finally woke up and wanted new cars, but I don't think so. I think they have wanted them all along. But guess what. The automobile companies decided it was better to sell cars and finance at zero interest rate and keep people working than it was to go ahead and cut back on production, charge interest rates so the finance companies would be turning a profit, but their factories would be laying off people. What an experiment because their people kept working and producing automobiles, and the rate of finance is zero. They must have analyzed what that does or does not do for their economic picture. But in the end, cars are selling because the cost of buying them is cheap. Now, the economy is still not recovering properly, although somehow-- at least this Senator believes that while I understood what was happening and clearly was out front saying we were moving toward a recession probably 12 months before we started saying it here, I believe there is a real chance if we do something right quick that this economy will start back up. There are some good signs out there, but there are some not so good signs that could indicate it is going to be a long recession. But I am putting before the Senate today a proposal. There are many Senators I have talked to about it. I won't mention their names. But a few of them I thank profusely because they have publicly commented to papers such as the Wall Street Journal, and others; some Democrat Senators who have analyzed it with me have said it is a very good approach. The reason that it is not moving with large numbers of Senators at this point is because everybody has some entanglements--and I use that word not pejorative--in terms of putting the packages together where they have committed here and there and, of course, they can't just jump off those ships, they have to let normal events occur. But this morning, Senator Bond, Senator Frist, and I put this before the Senate and the American people because we truly believe it is something that ought to be looked at. We are not here saying it is absolutely a cinch that it will work. But we are saying--three of us-- with gaining strength today--the Wall Street Journal quotes Dr. Lindsey from the White House. His analysis would indicate that this is a good economic stimulus package. Let me suggest that it is quick, doesn't have any administrative costs associated with it. It helps city, county, States, and private sector, and, indeed, every working man and woman in America who pays payroll tax for Social Security. The 6.2 percent that comes out of their paycheck will stay in their paycheck for whatever month we choose. The legislation is drawn for the month of December, for one month. Likewise, the employer does not remit to the Federal Government; they keep the money. In one month, if the month of December is chosen, I say to my friend from the beautiful State of Montana, $38 billion will go into the American economy via the wage earners and businesses, large and small, in one month. They will have that money close to the Christmas season one way or the other. If we do January, everybody will know it is there. If we do December, it will be in their paychecks. The reason I keep using one or the other month is because we have not moved with dispatch as everybody had hoped. As a consequence, I do not know if we can get it done in time for Christmas relief. It is a very simple bill. It is quick. The economic activities of it are immediate. It eliminates 12.4 percent payroll tax from the OASDI for the month of December; $38 million in immediate relief to be spent for whatever the recipient wants to do with it. Self-employed workers will see their taxes reduced by 12.4 percent in that month. It will be split evenly between the employer and employee at 6.2 percent on each side. Then, obviously, there is language putting the Social Security fund back in its original posture by transferring from the general fund. That accounts for the removal and use in the economy and the replenishment that one would expect. It is very simple. The three of us do this not as a total stimulus package, but for the tax portion that has been discussed by each side as being important. By a strange coincidence, the two provisions that were in the Republican package, the rebate and the 2 percent, the 2-percent marginal rate change, turned out to be $38 billion. This package is $38 billion. It is just a coincidence, but if we are looking for a substitute, we could substitute that money. Whatever the Senate wants to do about workers compensation, hospital and health protection--those are not part of the stimulus package in any event. They are part of us wanting to be helpful because people are hurting. Those can be worked out. Whether we fight over those or not, clearly, eventually, they will be worked out in both bodies. There are a lot of economists who have been analyzing this. We do not have a lot of them here today to talk about, but there are a lot. Perhaps when we return, I will print in the Record an article entitled ``A Stimulus Package May Not Work'' by Joanne Morrison. It cites three or four economists who analyze where we are. I say to my colleagues, there are two arguments against what we are doing. One, it is taking too long, and, two, it will take too long after we pass it. It may be a long-term event rather than a short-term stimulus. Second, without any question, there is serious doubt as to whether the other packages are very stimulative. In both instances, that is corrected here. Is it fair? It seems pretty fair. I am not saying we can solve each and every problem, but it is pretty fair. I have sent the tax bill to the desk. I thank my two cosponsors and the Senator from Montana for letting me present my thoughts on this. There are a lot of people beginning to ask about it and starting to support it. We will put the names of those institutions that support this in the Record as soon as we can. The Governors are coming on board. We have asked no one. They are reading about it now, and we probably will ask a number of other groups in the country to give us their views. I thank the Senate for giving me time. It is nice that debate can occur, but we are not there yet. Maybe a new idea can find its place here. I hope it is new enough to receive the consideration it deserves. Mr. President, we must move forward. Right now, we have a Republican stimulus bill that passed the House. We have the President's plan and the Senate Republicans' plan. We have the Senate Democrats' plan. But we don't yet have a stimulus plan that will pass the Senate and be signed by the President. I believe this bill can be the key to bringing both sides together quickly once we return from the upcoming Thanksgiving week recess. Let me be clear. I support the President. I think this administration is right on track when it comes to an economic stimulus package. However, any existing plan has to be modified to garner enough Senate support to pass. We can't wait till later to get this job done. The administration and Congress have promised to enact a stimulus package. The American people expect a stimulus package. The markets expect a stimulus package. It would be a huge mistake to wait. The retail sales reported yesterday showed sales up 7.1 percent in October. However, this was almost all due to aggressive and unsustainable incentives in the auto sector. In effect, these incentives are shifting auto sales that would have been made next year into this year. The economy is going to be in trouble once these incentives stop. In order to break the impasse and move the process forward, let me describe the bill we have introduced today. We propose a one-month payroll tax holiday, which would replace the current proposals for a supplemental rebate and the speed-up of the marginal rate reductions. I'll tell you why. IRS Commissioner Rossotti has raised administrative issues related to the supplemental rebates. Because of where we are in the calendar, such rebates would have to be folded into the taxpayers' 2001 tax returns and refunds next spring. A payroll tax holiday will be more effective at increasing spending than the rebate checks sent out earlier this year or a new round of rebate checks. It will put the tax cut in paychecks automatically, without the need for special mailings. Psychologically, workers are used to adjusting their spending habits based on the size of their paychecks. At present, workers spend about 95 cents for every dollar of after-tax earnings. Increasing their after-tax earnings will therefore lead to more spending--if they perceive the tax cut to be part of their regular earnings. That's why separate rebate checks don't work as well. When a worker gets a separate rebate check they are more likely to treat it as a special windfall gain and save the money or pay down debt. According to the University of Michigan, as of October, in the midst of a recession, only 30 percent of people receiving rebate checks were saying they would spend the money. The speed-up of the marginal rate reductions up has been criticized as a permanent change in tax law that benefits upper income folks most. The bottom line: A payroll tax holiday is truly a stimulative, temporary tax cut that is very likely to be spent. All wage earners earning below $80,400, even those that don't earn enough to pay income taxes, would benefit. Both the employee and employer share (6.2 percent each) of the social security (OASDI) payroll tax would be suspended. Self-employed social security payroll taxes would also be suspended. The Social Security trust fund would be made whole via a transfer from the general fund. Employees would have more take home pay and employers would have increased cash flow. A school teacher making $40,000 would see an increase in their take- home pay of $207 in December. A self-employed contractor earning $40,000 per year (who pays both the employer and employee share of 12.4 percent) would see an increase in pay of $413. It is most desirable to make the one-month period December 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001. A payroll tax holiday in December would be perfectly timed for the holiday shopping season. The whole tax cut would go out in only one month. We wouldn't have to wait for a new round of rebate checks to go out--a process that could take months and interfere with the speed of tax refunds. In addition, in 2001 the payroll tax is applied to income up to $80,400. By December, approximately 6 percent of wage earners have already reached the limit and would not receive the benefit of the payroll tax holiday. The cost of a December holiday is about $38 billion in fiscal 2002. If the holiday were in January, the cost would by about $43 billion, because all wage earners would receive the benefit. Mr. President, we are at an impasse here in the Senate. Let's all admit that neither the Democratic plan nor the President's plan has the requisite 60 votes to pass this Chamber. I believe this proposal could provide us with the key component to reaching a bipartisan way to enact a stimulus bill quickly.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Since I was part of the history of this, I wanted to recall it and let everybody know what we are debating here. Again, this point of order was established in the 2000 budget resolution, and then it was made permanent in the 2001 budget resolution. It was designed to specifically address what was said over and over at that point to be a misuse of the ``emergency'' designation that had become a popular mechanism for getting around the spending limits established in both law and in our budget resolution. So in the 2001 budget resolution, we established a very clear set of priorities designating domestic spending as an ``emergency.'' All those criteria had to be met to allow the spending or tax cuts to be placed outside the budget blueprint. Again, let me read those criteria because that is what we are debating. They were the following five criteria that had to be met: one, the provision must be necessary, essential, and vital; two, the provision must come about suddenly and quickly; three, the provision must be urgent, pressing, and compelling; four, the provision must have been unforeseen, unanticipated, unpredictable; and five, the provision must not be permanent. Senator Phil Gramm raised an appropriate point. The Senate has the authority to waive the issue before us and decide whether the underlying bill and the amendment to the bill meet all of these criteria. I haven't studied both bills, and I essentially looked only at the underlying tax bill that came out of the Finance Committee. I remind everybody that we have declared a huge amount of money as an emergency already. We are at $70 billion since the budget resolution that we have declared to be emergency because of the disaster that beset our people and the State of New York, Washington, DC, and obviously the crash in Pennsylvania. I just read the criteria. With reference to the tax bill, I ask rhetorically: Does spending money to buy meat, blueberries, watermelons, cucumbers, and other items, meet the emergency criteria of being urgent and necessary at this time? Do citrus canker tax credits rise to the level of a needed emergency tax cut today? Do payments to rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands qualify as emergency spending? I am just asking the question. Perhaps people think they do. Senator Gramm was wondering about not only these but whatever other ones he might have had in mind. Do we think expanding the work opportunity tax credit to provide $4,800 for every bond trader and stockbroker in Lower Manhattan meets the criteria of essential and necessary? Do we think the $2 billion pricetag for this provision is what we had in mind when we passed this tax credit for low-income, single-parent mothers? I submit, if this point of order is not waived, then obviously we will be back thinking about a bill that is bipartisan. I recommend that we not grant the waiver, and then I recommend strongly that we get busy on a bipartisan bill, showing the American people we can create a stimulus for our growth that includes tax measures and other items, that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, and we ought to get on with it. I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Let's vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I didn't hear the Senator. Did he say a time certain?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2125 would cause the aggregate level of revenues to fall below the level set out in the most recent agreed-to concurrent resolution of the budget. I raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I will be brief. I have a few remarks. First, S.J. Res. 28 is an automatic resolution. It is required to be introduced by the majority leader and considered by the Budget Committee and the Senate under expedited procedures. That is why we are here today. The resolution is automatic when the Congressional Budget Office notifies the Congress of an economic slowdown, as described in the Budget Act. On October 31 the Department of Commerce of the United States advanced the preliminary report on real economic growth. It showed the economy in the third quarter shrank at the annual rate of .4 percent, the largest fall since October of 1991. The report, which will likely be revised downward even more come the January report, triggered the Congressional Budget Office 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 initiate major spending cuts in a time of recession. I might add, the same section of the law that suspends spending cuts in a time of recession also covers events of war. S.J. Res. 28 was reported unfavorably from the Budget Committee, as indicated by the chairman of the Budget Committee in his remarks just a few moments ago preceding these. The committee is required to report the resolution without amendment, to be discharged without comment. 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 understand a vote on this resolution is scheduled for 5 o'clock today. I ask the Senate to join the chairman of the Budget Committee and me in 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 in Congress all the way through September 2003. I do not think we need to take such drastic action. I think we understand the situation and we can act accordingly on our own, in a normal manner, to take action that is required by the facts as we find them, quarter by quarter. I do not think we need to take the drastic action that is contemplated by the resolution. Having taken this position on a bipartisan basis, however, does not mean we should not act to address the economic slowdown and the war on terrorism, and I believe the distinguished chairman has indicated so to the Senate. We must take action on the war on terrorism, and obviously with appropriate legislation we must act against the economic slowdown with some kind of a stimulus package that, indeed, could clear this Senate and that would be acceptable to the President of the United States. We indeed must move in that regard. I understand the Senate's calendar contemplates that we move in that direction. Whether we can reach an accord or not is still another subject. In my view, the United States is in a recession, a recession that started even before the September 11 attacks of terrorism on the United States. Industrial production figures through September were down for the twelfth consecutive month. This is the longest decline in industrial production since World War II. Some of us have been talking about that for quite some time. Economists in the United States have been back and forth, but clearly nobody has been giving high marks to the economy. Whether they want to call it a recession or not, clearly it is not in the best of shape. We must take action as soon as we can get ourselves together. Some must lead in this institution so that we can do something anti- recessionary that is significant in the short term and in the long run take the right kind of steps. The unemployment rate has risen from 4 percent at the end of last year to 5.4 today, and it is rising. In October alone, we lost over 415,000 jobs, the biggest percentage increase in joblessness in more than 15 years. The Federal Reserve Board has cut short-term interest rates and the discount rates to the lowest level since 1961 and 1955, respectively. Yet even with these low interest rates, most private companies are having a tough time getting credit--a very interesting phenomenon. Commercial and industrial loans are down compared to last year. I believe it is going to take some time for our country and the world economy to work on its current problems. Restoring lost confidence will play a key role in the recovery. But working off the excess capacities that built up during the boom period of the 1990s will also be important. We must also maintain the tools of fiscal discipline to convey to the American public and the market that we are keeping an eye not only on the current challenges we face but also on those longer term challenges. We must maintain the provisions of the Budget Act that provide us with future discipline, and we must deal with both tax and spending legislation today while waiving the Budget Act on a case-by-case basis. I believe that is what we are recommending when we recommend the vote that the Senate should take this afternoon. Later today we will be considering a bill called the Economic Recovery and Assistance for American Workers Act of 2001 which was reported from the Senate Finance Committee last week. The bill was reported on a partisan basis with no Republican support. It will be subject to a Budget Act 60-vote point of order. But any Republican alternative will also be subject to this same supermajority vote. These 60-vote points of order would go away if this resolution were to become law. But in an interesting way, with the Budget Act points of order in place and with an almost evenly divided Senate, we are forced to work on a bipartisan basis in order to achieve the 60 votes necessary to enact proposals for spending increases or tax cuts. We all know the only way we are going to produce real stimulus legislation that addresses the economic slowdown is to work together as Republicans and Democrats. I hope we will do that. We started off right after that ominous day working together, arm in arm, hand in hand. In fact, the people of America looked at us and said: That is fantastic; we haven't seen much like that in a long time. Now we need to get our argumentative and partisan nature out of the way in the next few days and get on to something that we must do for America and for our people. We need a stimulus package. We need it badly. We need to show the public we can do it together with our President as we did immediately after the acts of terrorism when we did things that we didn't even believe we could do as we look back on them. Some of them were rather hurried. Some might not have been the right medicine. But I think overall the confidence that came from it justified it. It served us well. It will pay significant homage to the Senate in a bipartisan way, as we acted in the public interest exactly at the right time. Let's do it one more time. We are not going to approve the bill that came out of Finance. We both understand that. If the Republicans have a Republican proposal that doesn't seem as if it will pass, maybe out of those actions will come something better--maybe something that will really work, and I hope it will. I hope I can be part of that. I am not on the committee that is doing the work. Good luck to them. I hope they can get it done. In the meantime, we ought to start thinking together about what might take place with the proposals coming out of the committee in the event the sequence that the chairman and I discussed this morning is going to happen. If that happens, we certainly cannot leave the floor and be angry at each other, saying: Too bad. We are mad at them and they are mad at us, and it doesn't matter what happens to America. That can't be the case. We can't do that. I am very hopeful we will not and that within the next 2 days out of this partisan approach will come something much better--something bipartisan that will do the job. I thank the chairman for making his remarks brief so I could make mine. I state to the Senators that I am not going to be here for the entire time. I will leave for a while and be available very shortly. The chairman is aware of that. He understands that if anyone wants to be heard on our side, they should come down and seek recognition. I am here now saying to any Republican who wants time within our time limits that they are allocated the time by me unless there is objection. If there is none, that is what we will do on our side. Madam President, thank you very much. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their sensitivity to the issue of the new arsenic standards in water and its impact on thousands of communities throughout America. Let me say, I have given up on attempting to challenge the 10-parts- per-billion standard the administration has now found to be the standard that is necessary in drinking water in America for the water to be healthy and safe. Saying that I cannot fight it any longer does not mean I agree with it, nor that I think the Congress can ignore the consequences of this new standard on many communities across this land. More than 140 communities in my home State of New Mexico face this new burden at an estimated cost of more than $440 million, from the smallest of water supply systems to the very largest in the city of Albuquerque. Why would one be concerned enough about this to bring it to the floor of the Senate? It is a highly controversial issue as to whether the exact same standards on arsenic should apply in every community across the breadth and width of America because if you come from a State such as New Mexico, Nevada, West Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and many more, whatever human beings have lived in those parts of America, from the earliest arrival of men to the modern American living in these communities, there has been arsenic in the water that did not come from anything that human beings did by their actions or nonactions. Arsenic was in the water for all the time that humans have lived and found this water and drank of it. The arsenic was there because of the rock formations, that geology, over which the rainwater, after it rippled down, ran and percolated into lakes and reservoirs and areas underground which were then used for drinking water. Many hundreds of thousands of people drank of that water with no ill effects. I know it is almost the wrong thing to say scientifically, but it seems as if it is factual that the citizens in those areas to which I have alluded, including my State of New Mexico, are healthier, whatever is allegedly the damage that arsenic in the water produces. In other words, the diseases that are attributable to having more arsenic in the water are present less frequently in States such as mine than they are in other States that have not, for all this period of time, had drinking water which had naturally flowing arsenic as a component of the compound. Since I believe that, it doesn't mean I am advising that we not follow the law. But what I am suggesting is that soon small, medium- sized, and large communities in all of these States, including Nevada, including West Virginia, including New Mexico, including Arizona and many others, are going to start getting the estimates as to how they make these small water systems, these medium-sized ones, and these large ones--how do you get them down to 10 parts per billion of arsenic. They are going to get these big estimates. They are going to get estimates of rebuilding whole waterworks for this purpose. Then the citizens are going to be asking, after seeing the headlines: What is this all about? What I think we should have done in this conference is we should have let the Department--the Environmental Protection Agency--which adopted the new standard, deal with it in a normal manner. Actually, they would have 6 years before the implementation date. But they could at least work with cities. They could perhaps work on waivers attributable to good research which said if they are given 2 more years, they are going to come out with new science and it is going to be much less costly to Las Vegas, NV, and Reno, NV. I see my friend, the junior Senator from Nevada is here. But we went one step further in this bill and we prohibited the Environmental Protection Agency from doing anything other than enforcing this standard, literally, specifically, no exemptions, no waivers. I say to the two Senators who are managing this bill, the Chair and Senator Bond have been most understanding. They have both pledged if we can find a way to help with this, by either partial financing or in some reasonable way, they are going to do that. I want to tell the Senate there is some exciting research going on. That is getting funded, too. So we might make a breakthrough where we don't have to clean the arsenic out of the water in the manner expected of us today. There will be a newer way, cheaper, more reasonable, and perhaps we can get something done. To reiterate, I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond for their sensitivity to the issue of the new arsenic standard and its impact on thousands of communities throughout the nation. I am not arguing against the new standard of 10 parts per billion, since the administration has announced that it will support this level of arsenic in our water. But, we all know that achieving this new level will cost literally billions of dollars for communities, most of which will never be able to afford the equipment to meet this standard by the year 2006. I wish that we in the conference on VA-HUD could have addressed this issue in a substantive fashion, perhaps by establishing direct funding to help these communities. We were not able to do so, but I am assured by the many Senators who agreed with me that this issue is critical. We must establish a new program to help through grants and loans the communities that face virtual ruin if they try to fund this new equipment themselves. More than 140 communities in my home state alone face this new burden, at an estimated cost of more than $440 million. I hope that my colleagues will join with me, and with others, like Senator Reid of Nevada, as we try to forge a program as soon as possible, perhaps even later this session of Congress.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a modified version of my Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. When I first introduced this measure, S. 472, it contained a provision known as Section 127, relating to special demonstration projects for the uranium mining industry. This section was intended to create cooperative, cost-shared, agreements between the Department of Energy and the domestic uranium industry to identify, test, and develop improved in-situ leaching mining technologies. In addition, I intended that this initiative apply to low-cost environmental restoration that may be applied to sites after completion of in-situ leaching operations. Finally, Sec. 127 was intended to fund competitively-selected demonstration projects with the domestic uranium mining industry relating to enhanced production with improved environmental protection, restoration of well fields, and decommissioning and decontamination activities. I believe that the intent and spirit of Sec. 127 still have substantial merit. I hope that we can provide incentives for improved mining techniques and improved environmental restoration. However, Sec. 127 was subject to substantial mis-interpretation, especially among many people in the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico. It was claimed that this Section was directed toward helping a single company that might use it to expand in-situ mining near the Navajo Nation's borders. It was further claimed that such an approach might over a long period of time contaminate drinking water in the area. At no time was my bill intended to help any specific company. At no time did we intend anything other than improving environmental restoration and giving some hope to the domestic uranium industry that it might find an environmentally sound way to produce more domestic product. However, after discussing this issue with the president of the Navajo Nation and other members of the nation, I have decided that the best course, in order to put to rest all of the concerns expressed, is to simply strike Section 127 from my bill. I should add that some members of the Navajo Nation supported Section 127; but, the clear message from my friends on the Navajo Nation is that they would prefer, in order to avoid any confusion, that I delete Section 127 from my bill. Thus, the modified Act that I introduce today is identical to S. 471, with the exception that I have deleted entirely Section 127, relating to special demonstration projects. I talked to the president of the Navajo Nation this afternoon and he thanked me for this action. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a modified version of my Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. When I first introduced this measure, S. 472, it contained a provision known as Section 127, relating to special demonstration projects for the uranium mining industry. This section was intended to create cooperative, cost-shared, agreements between the Department of Energy and the domestic uranium industry to identify, test, and develop improved in-situ leaching mining technologies. In addition, I intended that this initiative apply to low-cost environmental restoration that may be applied to sites after completion of in-situ leaching operations. Finally, Sec. 127 was intended to fund competitively-selected demonstration projects with the domestic uranium mining industry relating to enhanced production with improved environmental protection, restoration of well fields, and decommissioning and decontamination activities. I believe that the intent and spirit of Sec. 127 still have substantial merit. I hope that we can provide incentives for improved mining techniques and improved environmental restoration. However, Sec. 127 was subject to substantial mis-interpretation, especially among many people in the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico. It was claimed that this Section was directed toward helping a single company that might use it to expand in-situ mining near the Navajo Nation's borders. It was further claimed that such an approach might over a long period of time contaminate drinking water in the area. At no time was my bill intended to help any specific company. At no time did we intend anything other than improving environmental restoration and giving some hope to the domestic uranium industry that it might find an environmentally sound way to produce more domestic product. However, after discussing this issue with the president of the Navajo Nation and other members of the nation, I have decided that the best course, in order to put to rest all of the concerns expressed, is to simply strike Section 127 from my bill. I should add that some members of the Navajo Nation supported Section 127; but, the clear message from my friends on the Navajo Nation is that they would prefer, in order to avoid any confusion, that I delete Section 127 from my bill. Thus, the modified Act that I introduce today is identical to S. 471, with the exception that I have deleted entirely Section 127, relating to special demonstration projects. I talked to the president of the Navajo Nation this afternoon and he thanked me for this action. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his question. I have been made aware of the problem in the Cook Inlet Navigation Channel, and I am concerned about its current condition. I am also aware that the channel is the lifeline for products to the State of Alaska. The area described by the Senator from Alaska should be considered within the scope of the original authorization and I urge the corps to address this issue soon as possible.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Alaska and ranking Republican on the full committee, that I agree completely with his analysis. The DOE is both authorized and adequately funded to provide for such a research grant. I join the distinguished Senator from Alaska in exploring and providing such a grant to explore the tidal energy protection of Alaska's Cook Inlet.

Mr. DOMENICI. The managers' amendment is, in fact, the conference report.

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no managers' amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I say to my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Nevada, I believe we have a very good bill. When one has water projects that everybody in the country believes they need, they are Members of the Senate and House and they indicate that there is a flood protection project, it meets the standard that the Corps has set up, and that means they are going to pay their portion of it required by law, and it fits every standard. It is pretty difficult for us to say we are not going to do it this year because, once again, the administration has underfunded water projects--that is, the Corps of Engineers--and so the request is going to have to be taken somewhere else. There is no somewhere else. If there is a major flood protection project, it meets the standards in terms of cost-benefit. Clearly, we have to ask the U.S. Government, as part of its Corps of Engineers, to work to fund it. There is a split in the cost. The local unit has to pay its share. The Senator asked a good question. I can answer it because I was chairman of this subcommittee for almost 6\1/2\ years, and the Senator from Nevada was ranking member. We saw a number of budgets. We only saw one budget from President Bush. The remaining were from Bill Clinton. Never in any year in my 6\1/2\ years or the Senator who is wrapping up his first year--never have we had a realistic assessment of the Corps of Engineers' work to be done, needed in these United States for various water projects. It started back perhaps as far as President Ronald Reagan, perhaps as far back as Richard Nixon. Think how difficult water projects were. The OMB, which is the technical group that puts together a budget, always finds it easy to recommend to a President a reduction, a cut, or not enough money for the Corps of Engineers to do its work. The Office of Management and Budget is not interested in water projects or flood protection as a major endeavor of the United States. They think it is secondary. They go through their work and are delighted they are meeting a budget that reduces expenditures. An easy item for them to cut includes water projects and the Corps of Engineers. That will save a lot of money. They find in Congress a Senator, a Representative, or a Governor who has requests of the subcommittee and looks seriously at a project not taken care of in that process I just described. That happens every year. Every year we find very good projects, needed by the local community, which fit the Corps of Engineers' requirements already evaluated in terms of the cost-benefit ratio. If it does not have a good cost-benefit ratio, we are not supposed to pay for it. Even if it does, somebody decides anyway they will not do it. That usually is the Office of Management and Budget representing the President. We now have a good bill. We had to go over the President and the Corps of Engineers, but most Members of Congress think this is a good deal. The Corps, in my opinion, continues to be maligned regardless of how well it does its work. Somebody on some issue puts forth facts and somebody decides it is time to attack the Corps of Engineers. I have been here long enough to see a cycle. In part of my Senate life, the Corps of Engineers was valued; it was very important. The recommendations they made were good and everybody knew they were technically sound. Then we had a cycle when the White House was joined by Senators and Representatives and the Corps of Engineers was to be maligned: It was not a very good institution of our Government. There are still people who do not want the projects to be built, who think the Corps of Engineers is not good. Very few will say their projects are not well done, well defined and well engineered. The White House, one after another, continued to propose reductions. We get blamed for spending too much because they did not spend enough. When we do the responsible thing and add funding, we are spending too much on water projects or funding your favorite or my favorite or some Senator's favorite water project. The balance in this bill is pretty good. In the future, water projects will go up, not down. That is how I see it. I hope we can complete our bill and have a vote tonight. It is a good bill. I am pleased to join Chairman Reid to present the conference report for the fiscal year 2002 energy and water appropriations before the Senate today. This has been a tough process and I want to thank all of the members involved for their patience in working through the issues. Chairman Reid has done a good job under very difficult circumstances to put together a fair agreement that accommodates, to the extent possible, all of the competing desires. The situation was particularly difficult for the Senate, as the conference allocation for defense funding was $550 million below the Senate passed bill. Despite the difficulties involved, we were still able to put together a conference agreement that funds nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship at $5.7 billion. Although that is a $350 million reduction from the Senate passed level, it still represents a $700 million (14 percent) increase over last year's conference level, and is $400 million over the budget request. This significant increase will allow us to get many programs back on track, including the pit production effort. It also allows us to begin a major infrastructure rebuilding program this year with a $200 million appropriation. The bill is not perfect. In fact, I remain concerned that the Senate was not able to hold all of the increased funding we provided for nonproliferation work at the NNSA. In particular, we had provided a significant increase of $55 million to nonproliferation research and development. Before September 11, I was a strong believer in the important work our laboratories do in research, development and deployment of technologies we need to detect and respond to the growing threat of chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism. As such, we added a significant sum of money in the Senate bill. The importance of this work is obvious to everyone today, as we have seen the NNSA labs play key roles in our government's response and clean-up of the anthrax attacks. Furthermore, the labs are now playing much greater roles in providing technical advice and technologies to many other government agencies--from advising the postal service on how to protect the mail, to developing the most advanced chem/bio detectors for deployment in Washington and other areas. The nonproliferation R&D account funds these and many other activities. As the Congress moves forward this year, we must find other resources in the $20 billion supplemental to fund these needs. In fact, I have suggested to the President and others, that we should spend an additional $255 million specifically for counter-terrorism R&D and nuclear nonproliferation activities beyond what the President requested in the supplemental. I look forward to working with all Senators to further address this issue before we adjourn this year. As for the water portion of the bill, my colleagues may recall that the administration proposed a $600 million reduction to the Corps of Engineers, or a 13 percent reduction from last year's level. Given the state of the country's aging infrastructure, we all felt that this was an irresponsible budget to propose. Therefore, the conference worked to restore the majority of the cuts, by restoring $500 million of the reduction. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that the requests for additional projects and funding far outweighed the resources of this bill. However, the conference has tried to balance critical needs across the country. Before I end my statement, I would be remiss if I did not mention and commend the outstanding staff involved in this process for the Senate. Senator Reid's staff of Drew Willison and Roger Cockerell, for they have been professional and very open with me and my staff throughout this whole process. In addition, I would like to thank my own staff, Clay Sell, Tammy Perrin, Jim Crum, and Lashawnda Smith. They have all served us well and we appreciate their fine work. Mr. President, I will now briefly state my best analysis of this bill. I will talk about two items. First, everybody should know that in the next 30 or 40 minutes we will vote on the bill. The title of the bill ``energy and water,'' seems as though it doesn't have anything serious in terms of America's future: We are just spending the money needed to pay for things. This doesn't have oil production, utility lines. It has nothing to do with enhancing America's production of energy by changing tax laws. It is energy and water tied together. In that piece called ``energy'' is all of the money needed and to be appropriated by the Congress for the nuclear weapons safety and maintenance. All the weapons we own are under the control and jurisdiction, by happenstance, of the Department of Energy. Money is transferred from the Department of Defense to this subcommittee to pay for all of the activities with reference to nuclear weaponry. Part of that is a new concept and a new carve-out with a new boss. General Gordon, who used to be with the CIA and was a general in the military before that, has accepted a job to head up the agency that has been carved out. He has jurisdiction over two things. They are gigantic. One is the science-based stockpile stewardship. Interesting words. The other is nonproliferation. They are very important programs. The part that has to do with the science-based stockpile stewardship came into being when Congress, the year before last, was filled to the gills over the dysfunctional nature of the management of this part of the U.S. Government's business by the Department of Energy. People were allegedly stealing important secrets, and the contentions were flying as to whether the Department of Energy or the laboratories could keep secrets and keep important items from getting into the hands of our enemies. It was decided, and I was one who helped write the bill, and was joined by a number of other chairmen at that point, and we passed a bill; the National Nuclear Security Administration was created. General Gordon heads it. Ultimately, when it has everything in shape, the nuclear activity that has to do with the science-based stockpile stewardship and all of the activities regarding nuclear weaponry will be in charge of that carve-out within the Department. While putting that together, some Senators did not think it was a good idea, including my friend, the chairman, who was then the ranking member. He has iterated his position recently, saying he wasn't for it then but he thinks it is a good idea and he supports it wholeheartedly now and, in particular, the general who heads it. The reason it is in existence is that America has made a commitment in a very dangerous world. We made a commitment on our own that we would do no more nuclear testing. It was voluntary by the United States. We are still living with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. And when will we vote on the energy and water bill?