Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow New Mexican who is retiring after 32 years of dedicated service with the United States Air Force and the New Mexico Army National Guard. Sergeant Major Benceslado ``Ben'' Rael has made duty, honor and service the hallmarks of his career and is a shining example of a true American patriot. Ben was born in Truchas, NM in 1941 and graduated from St. Michael's High School in 1960; he also received his A.A. from Wilber Wright College in 1973. Upon joining the Air Force, he immediately made an impact as a recruiting and retention specialist where he helped countless young people find a confidence and self-esteem building career in the United States Armed Forces. Ben's skills in recruiting did not go unnoticed. Upon joining the New Mexico Army National Guard, Ben was assigned the position of Vice Chairman of the Guard's National Recruiting and Retention advisory Council. Again, Ben showed himself to be a tremendous asset in keeping the National Guard vibrant in New Mexico. Ben has made all of New Mexico proud, and in tribute, Governor Johnson has proclaimed October 31, 2001 as ``Sergeant Major Benceslado Rael Day.'' I want to take this opportunity to join with the Governor, and indeed with all New Mexicans, in saluting Ben on a job well done and in wishing him many years of happiness in his retirement.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Over $150 million a year. We knew of the agreement and the binding nature of our agreement, and I felt bound by it in terms of how much money for 2002, and I think that is literally for 2002 but not 2003, 2004, or 2005. So we changed the effective date to 2003 in the amendment before it was sent to the desk.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it has.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. There are 154 organizations that indicate the time has come when we ought to do this, and I ask unanimous consent that this list of organizations be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of myself, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Kennedy, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 as amendment to the fiscal year 2002 Labor-HHS bill. I am joined by my friend and partner in this endeavor, Senator Wellstone. We are well aware of many of the arguments that will be made against our amendment. For instance, while the nation is rightly focused on recovering from the trauma and damage inflicted on September 11, it would be wrong to overlook this important issue because it is simply the right course of action to undertake. We are well past the time to act on extending and building on the federal mental health parity law that expired on September 30. Others will argue that our amendment costs too much. However, CBO has scored our bill as costing less than one percent 0.9 percent and again passing this bill is long overdue and the right thing do for the millions of Americans suffering from a mental illness. The number of Americans suffering from a mental illness or the number of family members affected by a mental illness has not magically decreased over the past couple of months. We are ready for a vigorous debate on a host of issues, but I would like to begin by saying: Our bill has 64 bipartisan cosponsors; the HELP Committee reported out the bill on August 1 by a vote of 21-0; 144 organizations support the bill; and CBO has scored the bill as raising insurance premiums by 0.9 percent. The human brain is the organ of the mind and like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain. Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if thirty years ago our nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures. I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain. More often than not, opponents of mental health parity argue the costs are too great. However, I would submit the cost of parity is negligible, especially, when contrasted with the cost impact upon society. The devastating consequences inflicted upon not only those suffering from a mental illness, but their families, their friends, and their loved ones. Furthermore, the following are several additional costs that result from mental illness: 16 percent of all individuals incarcerated in State and local jails suffer from a mental illness; suicide is currently a national public health crisis, with approximately 30,000 Americans committing suicide every year; of the 850,000 homeless individuals in the United States, about one-third or 300,000 of those individuals suffer form a serious mental illness; and finally what about the people that are crying out for help and society only hears their cries after they have committed a violent act against themselves or others. Just look, at the tragic incidents in Houston with the mother killing her five children, the Baptist church in Dallas/Forth Worth, and the United States Capitol to see the common link: a severe mental illness. Unfortunately, there is no place that a community can take these individuals for help. The police can do very little and likewise for hospitals. Some of you may have seen last year's 4 part series of articles in the New York times reviewing the cases of 100 rampage killers. Most notably the review found that 48 killers had some kind of formal diagnosis for a mental illness, often schizophrenia: 25 of the killers had received a diagnose of mental illness before committing their crimes; 14 of 24 individuals prescribed psychiatric drugs had stopped taking their medication prior to committing their crimes. In particular I would point to a couple of passages from the series: They give lots of warning and even tell people explicitly what they plan to do. . . . a closer look shows that these cases may have more to do with society's lack of knowledge of mental health issues . . . In case after case, family members, teachers and mental health professionals missed or dismissed signs of deterioration. Now let us look at the number of individuals suffering from some of the dreaded mental illnesses. Major depressive disorder: 9.9 million American adults age 18 and older suffer from this disorder in a given year; Bipolar disorder: 2.3 million American adults age 18 and older suffer rrom this disorder in a given year; Schizophrenia: 2.2 million American adults age 18 and order suffer from this disorder in a given year; and Obsessive--compulsive disorder: 3.3 million American adults age 18-54 suffer from this disorder in a given year. However, medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I would ask then, why with facts like these would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? We should not. Working together, we took a historic first step with the passage of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, but that law is also not working as intended. While there may be adherence to the letter of the law, there are violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. Consequently, Senator Wellstone and I have again joint forces and introduced the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. The bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees. The bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by prohibiting a groups health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits. At 2:25 this afternoon, an amendment arrived at the desk. I read off the names of the cosponsors, but I did not name the bill. So let me do that. This bill is called a mental health parity amendment. Another way of talking about it is that it is the mental health parity bill put into an amendment form. So we will not have to wait any longer to have a national debate as to whether insurance companies in the future--not this year but one full year from now is the way we have drafted the bill--will or will not be able to insure people against their illnesses and/or diseases and provide less coverage for the mentally ill as defined in this bill than they do for other well-recognized diseases such as cancer, diabetes, whatever they may be. That means the thousands upon thousands of American families who have young people in their teens with schizophrenia--well diagnosed, they are told by the medical people what they have, they are subject to treatment, to medication and, yes, a very long life of difficulty if, in fact, they do not have medication and treatment facilities in these great United States, the last group of Americans who have no health insurance because they are defined out of the coverage by the conventional approach to what is a disease and an illness and what is not. They are left out. So if one goes to New York or Chicago or, yes, Albuquerque, and finds street people and watches them and looks at them and says, oh, my, what are they doing, they will find that fully between 33 percent and 40 percent are sick. That is why they are there. They are sick and they probably have no insurance coverage, even though they are as sick as someone's next door neighbor who had a heart attack and is being taken care of in the best heart facility at the local hospital, and the insurance company pays the bill. We have had a history in America of not covering the mentally ill under conventional, typical insurance coverage. Quite to the contrary, we have sat by and watched insurance companies--obviously they are doing the best they can and this is part of their business. They are remaining solvent and being able to insure people at the most reasonable prices. The insurance companies come along and say: Since we are not obligated to do so, we will not cover the mentally ill; or if we do, they will be covered with a much smaller total coverage number, and everything about the coverage will be less than what we cover for people with the ordinary diseases that we so often talk about, including the great strides being made in heart disease treatment, heart disease research, heart disease care, or any of the other diseases we are so free to talk about. Somebody is being taken care of. The insurance company is paying the bill. New buildings rise up to cover them because they are insured. That is a great resource, coming directly from the back of the insured to the marketplace, the marketplace of paying for the best doctors, of paying for facilities. If somebody can pay for them, you are apt to build them. What about the mentally ill? The mentally ill have no facilities to speak of--just a few--because nobody will pay for them. There are no specialty clinics to speak of. There is very little private sector involvement in building health facilities where the mentally ill can be taken to make sure they take their medicine and are cared for. In the ordinary language of the marketplace, there is no money in it. There is no money in it because the people are not insured. Five plus years ago, my friend Senator Wellstone and I passed the first parity bill. It was partial parity. It caused the discrimination against the mentally ill under insurance policies to go away partially. It just expired. This bill, that is now in amendment form, passed out of the committee 21 to 0. A couple of Republican Senators want to offer amendments, and I am pleased they can offer them now, this afternoon. We tried our best to get the bill called up as a freestanding bill, hoping we would be given a day, 2, or 3 days. We could never get it done because there were some Senators--and it is their privilege and prerogative--who thought that we don't need to mandate coverage, even a year and a half from now, as we do here, and we do not need to cover the mentally ill that doctors define as having a brain disease and should have coverage. Some think their cause of not covering it is better served if we never get this bill up. I understand what a great imposition this is on the appropriations process and on the two wonderful Senators managing this bill, but I don't see any other way to do it. There are millions of Americans who have worked through their organizations. There are 140 organizations in America supporting this legislation. Some have a special interest. Some will receive better payment for taking care of the mentally ill. Some, such as the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, understand the plight of people with schizophrenia, the plight of people with bipolar diseases, the manic-depressive. They understand what parents are going through in America. These diseases do not always strike the elderly or the young. As a matter of fact, one of the most dread of these diseases has a propensity for showing itself when our young people are teenagers, between the ages of 17 and 18, up to 25 or 30. At this age the disease causes a great disability and poses a major problem for care of a son or daughter. Across this land thousands of people have already gone broke, cashing out every asset they own, trying to take care of their child, while America looks on the insurance system and says: We cannot tell anybody what kind of insurance they should cover. We cannot tell any insurance company what they ought to cover. We take for granted that they will cover heart conditions, heart research, they will cover any of the other diseases we more or less call ``physical'' diseases. On the periphery sits the mentally ill with little or no coverage. My good friend, Senator Wellstone, and I have been joined by 65 Senators. I sent this to the desk at 2:25. This is a very historic time. This amendment will pass, if not today, tomorrow. And today we will finally have made the Senate vote. I am convinced they will vote yes, let's get this started; get rid of this discrimination that has festered long enough in terms of the health coverage system of the United States. Before the day is out, I believe the number of Senators will go up, not down. For those frightened for small business, the committee, headed by Senator Kennedy, the committee we entrusted with our bill, which has the jurisdiction, has the authority to decide to send us a bill or not, decided, in order to have great unity and the first time through to get Democrats and Republicans on board, they would make an exception for small business. Everyone should know, all businesses with 50 employees or fewer are exempt; we are not mandating this coverage at this point. Small businesses that might be worried about this, or Senators who might be worried in their behalf, can read this bill. They will find that exemption. There is much more to say. Taking this up at the end of the year does not do this bill justice. It is a major undertaking by the legislative branch of the U.S. Government, led by the Senate. Nonetheless, we are going to proceed. To those who procedurally are determined not to let us have a straight vote, you will find a few changes in this bill from the language that came out of the committee. We wanted to make sure this bill was as protected as we could make it from procedural motions on the floor. It is not effective until the year 2003. That cures a lot of procedural problems some might have had. It is not subject to a point of order, a 60-vote point of order, because of that change and 2 or 3 other changes we made in order to see to it we got a straight up- or-down vote. For the mentally ill, the schizophrenic whose family is desperately trying to take care of them, or someone suffering the great delusions that are typical, the mammoth delusions that are common for a schizophrenic or for the bipolar suffering--for some unknown reason, they can be in a very low mood and then as high as they can get, and in between the highs and lows is a great inability to live a normal life-- this is the best we can do for those families in America, for those millions suffering. We have to offer it today. We have to get the Senate to say yes or no on whether coverage by insurance policies is part of the normal, everyday coverage for health care, whether or not it will include that portion of Americans. Obviously, these dread diseases are not typical only to America. In any particular area where a group of humans live, there is a certain percentage who will turn up with schizophrenia. There is a certain group that will turn up with the enormous ups and downs of the bipolar disease I described. There is also clinical depression, which probably has more victims than any other in terms of numbers. What does depression bring, along with the other two diseases I mentioned? A total loss of hope; suicides, which are growing in numbers, especially among teenagers. More times than not when that event occurs, the trail of symptoms indicates if they had been treated for depression, it probably would not have happened. In any event, I am prepared to go on much longer and in much more detail. For those who want us to delay consideration of this measure, I urge you to come down. See if I am correct. I don't think you have a parliamentary way of avoiding having the Senate vote. I don't think there is a way that you can make it subject to a point of order where we will need 60 votes. I don't believe there is a point of order with reference to the budgetary impact because we are able to understand in advance those kinds of procedural approaches. The bill is no longer subject to those kinds of procedural attacks. We feel good about it. We would like to spend some time talking about the reality of this bill and what it will and won't do. I close by saying the last argument that will come from those who oppose it is: Can we afford it? I assume they will also say: We are now in a recession. So we really can't afford it. I just told you it is not effective until 2003. We give everyone time to get out of the recession. Besides that, in terms of budgetary problems, the best estimate we have, and we will put it in the Record shortly, is the Congressional Budget Office saying when fully implemented, this may increase the cost of health insurance by nine- tenths of 1 percent. That is what the Congressional Budget Office says. I have given you the small business exemption. I have given you the experts' cost. I have given you when it will come into effect. Later on we will discuss who is covered by it. That is still something to be discussed. Some will want to know whether we made it too broad, whether we covered too many people, and whether we covered them in language that is so vague so that the disease is not adequately defined. We think we have done all of those things. We are pleased to engage later in the day with anybody who would like to talk about that. I yield the floor. I thank Senator Wellstone for his help. We will be here this afternoon defending this measure as long as we are needed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator before she leaves the Chamber, I thank her very much for her remarks. I have been very amazed in the 5 or 6 years I have been involved with mental illness issues as it pertains to Federal policy, as it pertains to State law, the more I go out and meet people, whether it is in a townhall meeting where a lot of people from all walks of life come, or whether it is a special event where somebody is being honored and there is a lot of glitter around, or even if you go to New York for some kind of event and you are meeting the people of swank New York, wherever and whenever, you always have more than one person walk up and tell you about their family--schizophrenia, manic depression, clearly depression, especially among young people, always somebody brings that up. To be honest, it is so common as an illness that it is hard for this Senator to believe we are in this year, 2001, still letting people write insurance policies and act as if heart conditions and all the research that goes with it should be covered, even build hospital clinics because insurance companies are so willing to pay because that insurer carries all of his resources on his back and builds new hospitals, builds new clinics, builds new techniques, builds more research, but all of these people who walk up to us and tell us their story, there is no money, there is no coverage. Some people will take that as this is a big philosophical difference. They would say to Senator Domenici on the Republican side, why do you want to tell anybody what to do? Why do you want to tell insurance companies what to do? Frankly, I think when we started this process of what will insurance companies cover and what they will not, I asked a question of those who think this is philosophical: What if we would have said a heart condition is not covered by insurance. Why? Because the heart is part physical and it is part spiritual, and we do not know enough about it so let us not cover it. What do you think we would be doing today? Do you think we would get to 2001 in American chronology and we would still be having insurance companies say they are not covering heart conditions because 41 years ago they should not have covered heart conditions because, after all, it is part spirit and part physical? Those who oppose this legislation want to leave the millions of Americans with severe mental illnesses right where they have been for decades. They do not want to acknowledge there is treatment, that it is costly, that one can get well, and that it is defined as brain disease in many parts of the medical community. It is not something that is unlike any other illness. It is very much like a lot of illnesses. It has a huge number of qualities that are the same as mental illnesses that we are so concerned about that we would not let an insurance company get by without covering them to the maximum. We would have them here and we would be citing them for some kind of contempt of America if they did that, I would think. So when the Senator from Michigan joins us and tells us the real facts, it begins to show signs that the message is getting through. Let me give one more example. When President Kennedy was the President, we were engaged in a very serious national effort with the severely mentally ill who were locked in cages. We could tell a whole story about that terrible part of American health care. As an ironic situation, I might say they are no longer locked in cages as they were. At that point in history, we decided that could not be done, they had to be let out. Now more of the seriously mentally ill are in jails in America than they are in hospitals. They are not in the cages. They are in jails because there is no place else to put them. They are getting arrested for malfeasance, most of it small. When it gets to the big crimes, we have a national argument about whether or not they are mentally insane when they commit mass murder. In any event, the reality of it is we decided way back then that we were going to treat the mentally ill differently. But what we thought would happen was that across America there would be clinics, there would be facilities built that would let the doctors treat the mentally ill in a modern, hospitable, decent manner, not in the dungeons of the past. Guess what happened. Nobody put up any money. Now one would say: Well, who should put up money? Either the Government ought to pay for some facilities or there ought to be some coverage if it is an illness so that the insurance companies would pay for it based upon it being carried by the mentally ill person. When they get sick, the insurance comes into play. With that, the private sector may build many facilities for the mentally ill. It is not going to happen until we do that. I thank the Senator so much for her remarks today. They were right on, from this Senator's standpoint, and very relevant.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. I send to the desk a list of cosponsors. There were 65, plus the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New Mexico.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, might I say that there is no need to be personal about legislation, but I thank him for his comments. It is obvious that there are many who have been here for a short time, such as the Senator, who already understand that we can't go on as a nation fooling ourselves that schizophrenics are not sick, they don't have a disease; that serious depression, which is now causing suicide in numbers that just go off the map, we can't run around and say, well, for some reason, some purposes, it is an illness or a difficult disease, but for other purposes, well, in terms of whether they should have insurance, we will look the other way and act as if it isn't. We have had Senators who understand manic depression take the floor. Those are just two nice words. One means high; one means low. But you put that in the brain of a person, and it is not very normal. They have to be sick, and they are diagnosable. They are treatable. But here we are, the millennium is here, we are one year into it, and some people would still say: Let's play like it ain't so. Let's just wish it away. And certainly when it comes to health insurance, we just can't. We have to leave things alone no matter how backward it is, how disjointed it is, how unreal it is. We just have to look the other way. When will be soon enough? I think now. I will tell the Senator, in order to get it through here, we had to put it off a year in terms of its effectiveness. I would like it to be effective as soon as it gets passed, but it won't because we wouldn't have gotten a bill out of the Senate that would be subjected to some technical objections. I shouldn't say we wouldn't, but it would be difficult. We made a call and said that it is better 2 years from now than to leave it as it has been forever. So tonight you will be part of voting in an appropriations bill, and we will put on it covering the mentally ill of this land with parity or nondiscrimination of health insurance. We are going to exempt some small businesses. Somebody will argue about that: Why are you doing that? We can't get everything in one swoop. We really think the coverages by big corporations are where we are going to find out how to do this. So they are all going to be under it, whether it be Ford or Intel or whomever. Many of them include coverage already. But no more excuses. No more looking the other way. Frankly, in the State of the Senator from New Jersey, in 8 or 9 years, there will be new mental health facilities built. You are going to ask: Who built this? We know not all are going to be built by the Federal Government because we don't build them. We never did enough since John Kennedy decided we should go another way with the mentally ill and try to be more humane. What is going to happen is private entrepreneurs are going to say, what is the insurance company going to pay when we take care of that depressive person for a week? If they pay enough, they are going to build the clinics just as they have built hospitals, just as they have built other health facilities. As of now, nobody accepts the responsibility. Everyone wants to look the other way. I am grateful that Senators who have been here a while, such as this Senator, the Senator who has just arrived, are all coming to the same conclusion this afternoon. Perhaps by 6 o'clock we will have passed this bill. It is very strange. It goes out in the country. I have been working for it. I expect the debate to go on for a couple weeks. That isn't going to happen. The reason it isn't is because 67 Senators signed this bill and we brought it up. I thank each one of them. I have a detailed statement that includes a number of approaches to this issue, including an analysis and summary of what the New York Times found when they analyzed mass killers. They analyzed 25 mass killers and found half of them had serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. There was no place to put them. They had been put in jails. Cops had arrested them. People had tried them on in prisons. But nobody took care of them. Then they ended up over in one of the Texas cities killing all the people in that Baptist church. We find that half of the mass killers in America are those kinds of people. There is no place to put them. Relatives don't know what to do. Neighbors say: Look at all this behavior. Isn't it strange? We will call a cop. The third time the cop is called, he says don't call anymore. What does that person who is desperately ill do? We invite these kinds of murders and mass killings that occur in our country. It is time to try something that may give these sick people another option. I have a quick set of facts about mental illness, the numbers on the kinds of mental illnesses that exist. I think it will help Senators who want to read the Record to understand the scope of this problem. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator asked me a question, and I want to answer this way: Frankly, most of this bill is going to be taken care of by insurance companies paying insurance bills, but there is some U.S. Government responsibility because it reduces the receipts in certain areas that would have otherwise come in because of the overall costs. We knew in 2002 it was subject to a point of order because, in fact, there is a cap in 2002. There is no cap for 2003 and the years beyond, and for that reason we do not believe a point of order lies in the outyears, nor do we think anybody is bound to reduce appropriations by that amount in the outyears. We are prepared at some point to exchange serious discussions, if anyone wants to do it, on this issue. I yield my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. No impact on the year 2002. We have made the bill operative and effective in 2003.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce budget legislation to increase the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2002 and eliminate the current balances on the pay-go scorecard. While it is likely that this or similar language will be included in one of the remaining appropriations bills, I believe it is important to introduce this bill and have it referred to the Committee on the Budget in order to assert the committee's jurisdiction over such matters. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Kohl, and my good friend and distinguished ranking member, Senator Cochran, for including $750,000 in the bill to allow the National Center for Genome Resources in Santa Fe, NM, to proceed to establish a Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species. This program was authorized through an amendment that I sponsored to the Agriculture Risk Protection Act, Public Law 106-224. The final language in Section 227 of that Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Research Service, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Center for Genome Resources in Santa Fe, NM, and university partners to establish and operate the Bioinformatics Institute for Model Plant Species. An amount of $3 million was specifically authorized to establish the Institute, and such sums as may be necessary is authorized for each subsequent fiscal year to carry out the cooperative agreement. The Center is pleased to work with both New Mexico State University and Iowa State University in this bioinformatics initiative. I strongly urge the Senate conferees to retain this funding in conference with the House. The initial appropriation of $750,000 in the Senate bill will allow the National Center for Genome Resources to build upon its existing programs to create and develop software tools to transfer information and conduct comparative analyses among model plant and crop species. The Center, in establishing the Institute, will develop a bioinformatics infrastructure to improve the accessibility and facilitate the transfer of information on structural and functional genome information from model plants to crop species. The Institute will work with university partners at New Mexico State University and Iowa State University to expand and link existing genomic and genome database research from the Agricultural Research Service allowing researchers to discover, characterize, and manipulate agronomically important genes of major crops, including soybeans, alfalfa, maize, and cotton. As a non-profit entity, the National Center for Genome Resources provides its research to the public domain to improve the productivity and nutritional value of agricultural crops grown in the United States. I am pleased to work with the Appropriations Committee to advance a project that holds the promise of improving agricultural crop quality, nutrition, and production.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator from California leaves, I wonder if she would put me on the two amendments, and I thank the Senator for recognizing I have been waiting. I do appreciate the brevity.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about history, but strangely enough, short history--the last 3\1/2\ to 4 weeks. Because so much has happened in that period of time, I am firmly of the opinion today that while we will return to some level of normalcy and we will all begin to understand what has changed in the world, we all found out in a short period of time what kind of people terrorists are and what they will do. Americans can hardly understand how somebody would organize people--having no country, no real habitat, with no concern except to wreak havoc on those they do not like. We live in that new bubble. I rise today to urge that we continue one other important thing. I believe we have a long-time reputation of being the body wherein issues are argued, debates can even go on forever. What we did immediately after that New York disaster, when the terrorists showed their true light to the Americans, was we decided in the Congress we would not conduct business as usual. Something rather magnificent happened. The public perceives us completely differently. We, too, have changed in their opinion because we lock arms on big issues, we work very hard behind the scenes with experts. We come to the floor and, with a minimum of debate, we pass important measures. That has been one of the most significant signals to our own people and to the terrorists of the world, that we can adjust this great Republic to the modern problems, the problems we never, ever, anticipated, even 2 years ago, much less when our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. I think something is going awry, that maybe this unity is falling apart or breaking. I am hearing leadership offer their own proposals. Just yesterday I heard the majority leader, who I thought was doing a magnificent job joining with Republicans, introducing a reconciliation package. I thought we were going to work the big issues together. I urge that we return to that mode and during the next 4 to 6 weeks, or however long we want to spend, we complete some very fundamental work and we get on with a few packages that will indicate we need to do something new and different. That way, we would not have either the tremendous buildup and pressure of not being able to get things done, nor would we have a cantankerous partisan debate over matters that could easily be resolved, as we resolved the first four or five bills of importance when New York was still on fire and the Pentagon was still steaming because we hadn't put out the fires deep inside the beaten-upon building that was a symbol of our strength. I also want to say something else is happening which makes this a very difficult burden for our President, for us, and for the American people. First I commend the President. I think he has done a tremendous job. I believe he leads not only us but I think right-minded people everywhere, although they all have different political problems. They are seeing America, now, under his leadership, presenting a real opportunity for the world to get rid of terrorism. They are joining us, not one or two a day, but in flocks; the countries of the world are joining us. Maybe from this will come a new world order. Who knows? I said that a few weeks ago. The father of this President came into office saying he wanted to work for a new world order. Things got out of hand. The new President did not claim that. But, because of the courage, tenacity, faith, he is leading the Nation to a whole new set of alliances, all of which I see as very positive. It seems to me Russia and America may come out very differently as a result of this incident. It also seems to me that a number of countries that were not willing to join us are looking around and saying: We would like to help America. Most of what I have just said indicates a desire to unite and work together. What a joy to see all Members, Democrat and Republican--mayor Republican, Governor Republican, Senators Democrat--go to New York City. There wasn't anybody there trying to get their way. They were trying to get together and get something going for the people of New York and for our country. Again, unity paid off in really big dividends. We don't usually think of our leaders, under our evolved two-party system, in a way that says, if you will just unite, you will do the best thing you can for our people. But I think that is happening. That has taken a back seat because today we are talking about anthrax, and we are learning. I want to compliment all the professionals who worked on it. I really believe they did the very best they could under the circumstances. I compliment them all. We are learning brand new things even about this particular microorganism. We are learning that maybe it is spread easier than we had learned in the textbooks and that the scientists said. Maybe you can aerosol it much easier than we thought. We thought that was a very difficult thing. We thought it required very efficient kinds of equipment and tremendous resources. It still may. We don't have the answer yet. But I don't believe we ought to start arguing among ourselves about this particular problem. I think we ought to also join together, listen to our experts, and if we need to do some more things quickly, let's do them. Let's not run to see who is going to get credit. Let's not try to put bill upon bill just to spend money. I want to remind everyone we are down to about $50 billion in surplus from $176 billion just 5 or 6 weeks ago, and this is the surplus we didn't even want to touch. It is the accumulated surplus that was all going to go on the debt. We are down to $50 billion or so, but we see the bills people are proposing under the rubric of stimulus plus expansion of social welfare programs. I trace our longer history, not just 3 weeks, and find we never did try to expand those programs in our serious recessions before. They were taken up in due course, not as a stimulus, not as an emergency. That has to do with COBRA and other programs at which we are looking. But I think we have to face up to the reality that every night we are looking at Afghanistan on the television, trying to figure out how are we doing, whose side is winning, what is happening, and here at home we are engaging our best scientists in this dread illness. This illness comes from a product that is very common. I think the Senator in the chair knows that out west, where we have a lot of cows and pens for cows and the like, these spores are prevalent everywhere. In my State, in northern New Mexico, there are many of them. We treat them properly, give them their proper respect, and they don't go anywhere because people either take antibiotics or take treatment, and we go on with our lives. But the overhanging problem is the American economy. When it is flourishing, we can do almost anything. When it is coming down and in recession, it has a tendency to harm an awful lot of people. The cycle in American capitalism, which nobody has cured yet, when it starts coming down and unemployment goes up and the other things that we know about come about--obviously, productivity is not growing like it was, many people are put out of work, many businesses go bankrupt, many families have to ask the Government to help because, through no fault of their own, they can't be employed. We can't order them to be employed, if we want to use the great system that has built this country to its enormous material powerhouse status. I want to say the third thing we have on our platter makes it a very big platter. Three big things sit there, straining America: There is a war that is different from any we had, and there is a human commitment by the American people, in spite of its difference, despite its ferocity, despite the risks we have to take--it is amazing, the American people, in excess of 90 percent, say stay with it; go get them. It is amazing that they say America is on the right path. We always ask, are we on the right path or the wrong path? This is one time we have been united and they know we are on the right path when it comes to this war. Americans, given the facts, although they are a little more frightened than they have been in the past, will support an appropriate, righteous cause. We are not without fault. But certainly we do not deserve, either from our own citizens or from people in the world, some of the things said about America. We are flourishing because we have a great system. And we have not destroyed our own system. We have lived with it, made it grow, and when things had to change, they changed peacefully and parties got new agendas for their candidates and we established new things to make America grow. When America grows, we can do much more for education, we can do more for all the things that we cherish, and we can give our taxpayers a little bit of the empathy they need so they can grow and prosper. So far, as I look at it, it seems to me we are going to wake up in 3 or 4 weeks when we get some new economic numbers. I regret saying I think there will be a new headline. The headline will be: America In Recession. Those speaking about it are saying we don't know quite how to fix it. I have sensed that for quite some time. I added my own economics that I do, having worked with a lot of these people, had conversations, and then we look for some big facts. I just want to share one that is very startling, and that has to do with a very important characteristic of our economy--industrial production. The problem is that industrial production figures that were released just 1 week ago yesterday morning--we are down 1 percent in the month of September. This year alone, that great measure of our productivity, and of our production, will be down 6 percent. That is as much as it went down in the entire 1990-1991 recession. Put another way: This is the 12th consecutive month of that kind of decline. This is the longest decline in industrial production since World War II. I understand it doesn't have all of the significance it had during this period since World War II. It has been pushed aside as a major indicator by some other things. But it is still a major one. I believe our mission is simple: Get together on the appropriations bills, no excuses, unite, have our leaders unite, and let's get them done. Let's just say it ought not be an excuse big enough to deny our desire to work together in a unified way to get the ordinary business done. I think when we were beginning to move, our buildings were closed down. Who would have thought of that? Nonetheless, that is the case. We are trying to find ways to work even though the buildings are not quite accommodating. We are getting there. We are forcing some accommodations so we can do our work. In addition, we have to finish up the work of an appropriations bill that appropriates money which we put in, in the early days for New York and for defense. Remember that we passed that to send a signal and to appropriate the money, but we said it is subject to a new appropriations bill. That has to be done. That requires unity. That requires Senators and Congressmen to give up some things and get on with a package with consensus, and then unite together and say let's do it. Some say it was too big a package. We will have to add a lot. Let's just say that considering America's future and what we are, the worst thing would be for us to not do what we have promised to do. The second worst is to not continue on with evaluations and then pass laws and appropriations to fill some very serious holes we have--clearly in the medical area, biomedical, and chemical. In terms of our country, we were at war in a sense, but we really didn't understand the significance of biological and chemical warfare. We weren't as well prepared. But whom do you want to blame for that? Some people are now beginning to ask. There have been Senators, House Members, and Presidents who have spoken to terrorism. They have spoken to the issue of biological and chemical warfare. But I can tell you from our own experience on one bill. We passed a bill that is commonly known as Nunn-Lugar-Domenici which is now in 126 cities with $670 million a year. It takes the first responders, fire, policemen, and medical teams; it organizes them so they move in harmony again, in unity. It was very hard during the first 2 or 3 years to get cities to willingly participate. There is no criticism, but they did not like the idea because they did not want to let their people think they were subject to any real problems from outside. It took 3 years to get the program implemented. It took the U.S. Government's executive branch to divide it into three parts instead of in unity. It is implemented by three different Departments of our Government. Obviously, we learn about that now. We are in trouble. We are going to seek unity of purpose with reference thereto. I also suggest that the economy needs an economic stimulus plan. I remind everyone, this economy is faltering. I don't believe we should be the first as Senators from different States that may have problems to run and say we need to pay for a new program. Every program and every tax proposal ought to be subject to that. Let's consider it. How does it help the economy grow? I think if it doesn't, it ought to be on another calendar. We don't know with precision, but we know pretty well that a bridge construction program that comes into effect 3 or 4 years from now may be a good program because we need bridges, but it is not an economic stimulus package. I think we have come to the conclusion that highway bridges and like programs, if we need them, are good programs, but for the most part they are not programs that will accelerate the growth in this economy. Instead of everybody going to the wall on that, that can be organized and talked about. We can get on with doing what we don't do so well. But we have done marvelously well for the last 5 or 6 weeks to commit to the American people that until we finish our business, including a stimulus package, if we can do it, we are going to lock arms and finish on an upbeat note that says we are united to do what we can about this terrible new enemy. We are absolutely committed to give our President what he needs militarily, and we encourage him to follow them to their demise. To the extent we have additional stimulus ideas, we ought to take a good look to see if we can do them together. If it is OK, we can then come in the next year. We don't have to do everything in the next 3 or 4 weeks. We will learn a lot about this problem in the next 5 or 6 weeks. Instead of passing bills, we will have some very refined examinations and appraisals of our problems. For instance, everybody always hears me talk about the laboratories that do our nuclear work. The people who visit them say they are crown jewels in terms of research capacity. I think it still shocks people to know that, for instance, in this area that has to do with this biological enemy that we are fighting now, those two laboratories combined in expertise, if not the paramount source of evidence, are the paramount source of definition about these spores. That happens to be a program they have in place, and they are being called upon now to be some of the experts to resolve some of these unknown issues. We have to help put all of those together to work in unison under our new manager of domestic problems, a wonderful former Governor, Governor Ridge. I close by saying to the Senators from both sides of the aisle, House Members and those who are in close contact with our Members, let's get back to where we were and seek unity; let's try to lock arms and get our basic job done, the extraordinary work done, and do it in such a way that Americans can continue to feel what they feel about this Government. They totally support our President. They think we are better than we have ever been. I don't think we need to fight when we have an enemy that will just capitalize on anything going on in our country that is tearing at us. They think they are going to cause that. We ought to do just the opposite. Thank you for the privilege of speaking today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Victor Westphall. Dr. Westphall has dedicated his life to recognizing and celebrating the service and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. This past Saturday, Dr. Westphall celebrated his 88th birthday, and I still marvel at how much he has accomplished during his lifetime. Dr. Westphall's dedication to veterans is not surprising because he is a veteran himself. He entered the United States Navy in 1943 as an ensign and served for two years in the South Pacific during World War II. During this time, he was responsible for setting up message centers to allow front-line communication. After serving three years in the Navy and earning two full stripes, Dr. Westphall moved with his wife and his two sons to Albuquerque. However, his family had a difficult time finding housing because of the large number of returning G.I.s. Dr. Westphall realized that many veterans were faced with the same situation, so he began a home construction business and built over 3,000 homes in New Mexico. At the same time, he earned his doctorate in history at the University of New Mexico and eventually became a leading author and expert on Southwestern American history. In 1968, Dr. Westphall received news that his son, David, had been killed in Vietnam. David was a platoon leader and was killed with twelve of his men in an ambush near Con Thien. However, Dr. Westphall was determined to draw some good out of this tragic event. He decided to use the life insurance payment from his son's death to build the Vietnam Veterans Peace and Brotherhood Chapel in Angel Fire, NM. Although Dr. Westphall struggled to find financial support to help build this memorial, he remained dedicated to the project, and in 1971, the first monument to Vietnam veterans in the United States was formally dedicated. The Vietnam Veterans Peace and Brotherhood Chapel stands as a handsome tribute to our veterans who served in Vietnam. Dr. Westphall hired a Santa Fe architect to design a beautiful white chapel with gentle curves sweeping 50 feet upward towards the sky. This serene memorial overlooks the sacred Moreno Valley in northeastern New Mexico. It offers visitors the opportunity to remember those who served their Nation proudly in the Vietnam War in a peaceful and spiritual setting. The Chapel's eternal flame illuminates this ideal place for quiet meditation. Even today, Dr. Westphall remains deeply involved in this monument, which attracts over 120,000 visitors every year. He still greets visitors to the Chapel in his wheelchair, while sharing stories of loved ones lost during the War. There is a very moving story that Dr. Westphall recounts about the Chapel. When the memorial was first opened, the Chapel would close every night. However, one morning Dr. Westphall found a message left by a young veteran on the door: ``I needed to come in and you locked me out.'' Since then, the Chapel remained open 24 hours a day. Just like the Chapel, Dr. Westphall has always been there for our Nation's veterans. From his own service in World War II to his construction of houses for returning veterans to the opening of the Vietnam Veterans Peace and Brotherhood Chapel, Dr. Westphall has remained dedicated to America's veterans. I salute Dr. Westphall's lifetime of service to our veterans, and I am proud and honored to have him as a friend.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, innovation drives a significant part of our domestic economy; it's absolutely vital in maintaining our standard of living. Estimates are that at least half of our economic growth in the post-WWII period was driven by advanced technologies. Innovation is especially critical today at a time when our economy has shown significant weaknesses. We need to continue to look toward our ability to innovate, to bring new products and processes to the market place, to help spur recovery. Innovation depends on many factors, ranging from the research done in our superb universities and laboratories to the flow of capital investments into entrepreneurial start-up companies. One of the very key factors is the existence of a well qualified workforce, ready to support high technology industries. Increasingly, preparation of that workforce is at risk in the United States, this should be cause for great concern. That's why I welcome this opportunity to join with Senators Lieberman, Bond, Mikulski, and Frist, as well as with Congressmen Boehlert and Larson, to provide my support as an original co-sponsor of the Tech Talent Bill. This bill can help to reverse disturbing trends in the technical credentials of our future workforce. Studies show that the number of jobs requiring technical training will increase by 51 percent over the next decade. Six million new technical openings are projected to be needed by 2008. But the trend is exactly the opposite, our number of bachelor's degrees has dropped 21 percent in engineering and 32 percent in math and computer science over the last decade. In the last few years, we've filled many technical positions with foreign workers, and we've heard repeated cries from our high tech industries about their need for larger visa programs to allow these workers to enter the country. In addition, increasing numbers of our undergraduate and graduate students are citizens of another country. Frequently, both foreign students who have completed technical studies in the United States and foreign technical workers admitted under special visas return to their native lands. That fuels a continuing outflow of technical expertise from our country. That's good for other countries, who are striving to build up their technical capabilities, but it sure isn't good for the United States. The trend is ominous. In 1985, we led most countries in the number of research personnel as a percent of our workforce. In 1998, we were well behind countries like Japan. This trend is even worse if we look at young technical workers, because much of our strength is from older workers from past years when technical education was more popular here. If we look at the fraction of 24 year-old workers with technical training, the U.S. lags behind many countries including Japan, Korea, Germany, Ireland, Canada, France and the United Kingdom. This problem is even more evident if we look at the fraction of bachelor-level degrees awarded in science and engineering. In the United States, the figure is about one-third. But in China, our one- third is replaced by their 72 percent, and Japan, Russia and Brazil exceed 60 percent. In all of Asia, 47 percent of all degrees are in science and engineering. It's even worse if we focus on engineering, where 5 percent of our bachelor's degrees are awarded. In China, that figure is 46 percent. And that figure is 30 or more percent in countries like Germany, Russia, Singapore, and Finland, and over 20 percent in many countries including Japan, France and Sweden. Traditionally, the United States has led the world in patents. But if we look at the growth in patenting in the U.S. and elsewhere, the trend is serious. Countries like Japan have higher growth rates in patenting then we do. I already noted the importance of innovation in driving our economic growth. We don't compete well in the international marketplace on manufacture of low-tech goods. In fact, where a product has been on the market for awhile, other countries tend to capture the manufacturing market. That's why it's so critical that we maintain a strong flow of innovative products it's in the newest, highest technology, products that we are most competitive. We can't afford to maintain some of the current trends. We were graduating about 18,000 students a year with bachelor's degrees in the physical sciences in the 1970s, today that figure is around 15,000. As another bad example, our graduates in mathematics have fallen to about half the 25,000 graduates per year in the 1970s. We need to reverse these trends. We need to excite more students to pursue technical careers. We need to do far better at showing students the opportunities that can open for them if they pursue technical paths in their education. This bill will help in this quest. By providing grants to schools and community colleges to increase their production of technical workers, we are providing direct motivation to the schools which have a significant hand in guiding students into various fields. These grants will serve to challenge schools to find better, more convincing, approaches to encourage student behavior. It was particularly important to me that this bill offer these incentives at the community college level. Students are increasingly finding that these institutions offer the best match to their educational needs. It will be at the community college level that we can excite many new students who might have chosen other specialities. Reversing the trends I've described won't happen overnight, it will take many years. But the future benefits to our your people and to our nation are immense. I'm pleased to join the co-sponsors of this important bill in seeking to address this very real issue.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, innovation drives a significant part of our domestic economy; it's absolutely vital in maintaining our standard of living. Estimates are that at least half of our economic growth in the post-WWII period was driven by advanced technologies. Innovation is especially critical today at a time when our economy has shown significant weaknesses. We need to continue to look toward our ability to innovate, to bring new products and processes to the market place, to help spur recovery. Innovation depends on many factors, ranging from the research done in our superb universities and laboratories to the flow of capital investments into entrepreneurial start-up companies. One of the very key factors is the existence of a well qualified workforce, ready to support high technology industries. Increasingly, preparation of that workforce is at risk in the United States, this should be cause for great concern. That's why I welcome this opportunity to join with Senators Lieberman, Bond, Mikulski, and Frist, as well as with Congressmen Boehlert and Larson, to provide my support as an original co-sponsor of the Tech Talent Bill. This bill can help to reverse disturbing trends in the technical credentials of our future workforce. Studies show that the number of jobs requiring technical training will increase by 51 percent over the next decade. Six million new technical openings are projected to be needed by 2008. But the trend is exactly the opposite, our number of bachelor's degrees has dropped 21 percent in engineering and 32 percent in math and computer science over the last decade. In the last few years, we've filled many technical positions with foreign workers, and we've heard repeated cries from our high tech industries about their need for larger visa programs to allow these workers to enter the country. In addition, increasing numbers of our undergraduate and graduate students are citizens of another country. Frequently, both foreign students who have completed technical studies in the United States and foreign technical workers admitted under special visas return to their native lands. That fuels a continuing outflow of technical expertise from our country. That's good for other countries, who are striving to build up their technical capabilities, but it sure isn't good for the United States. The trend is ominous. In 1985, we led most countries in the number of research personnel as a percent of our workforce. In 1998, we were well behind countries like Japan. This trend is even worse if we look at young technical workers, because much of our strength is from older workers from past years when technical education was more popular here. If we look at the fraction of 24 year-old workers with technical training, the U.S. lags behind many countries including Japan, Korea, Germany, Ireland, Canada, France and the United Kingdom. This problem is even more evident if we look at the fraction of bachelor-level degrees awarded in science and engineering. In the United States, the figure is about one-third. But in China, our one- third is replaced by their 72 percent, and Japan, Russia and Brazil exceed 60 percent. In all of Asia, 47 percent of all degrees are in science and engineering. It's even worse if we focus on engineering, where 5 percent of our bachelor's degrees are awarded. In China, that figure is 46 percent. And that figure is 30 or more percent in countries like Germany, Russia, Singapore, and Finland, and over 20 percent in many countries including Japan, France and Sweden. Traditionally, the United States has led the world in patents. But if we look at the growth in patenting in the U.S. and elsewhere, the trend is serious. Countries like Japan have higher growth rates in patenting then we do. I already noted the importance of innovation in driving our economic growth. We don't compete well in the international marketplace on manufacture of low-tech goods. In fact, where a product has been on the market for awhile, other countries tend to capture the manufacturing market. That's why it's so critical that we maintain a strong flow of innovative products it's in the newest, highest technology, products that we are most competitive. We can't afford to maintain some of the current trends. We were graduating about 18,000 students a year with bachelor's degrees in the physical sciences in the 1970s, today that figure is around 15,000. As another bad example, our graduates in mathematics have fallen to about half the 25,000 graduates per year in the 1970s. We need to reverse these trends. We need to excite more students to pursue technical careers. We need to do far better at showing students the opportunities that can open for them if they pursue technical paths in their education. This bill will help in this quest. By providing grants to schools and community colleges to increase their production of technical workers, we are providing direct motivation to the schools which have a significant hand in guiding students into various fields. These grants will serve to challenge schools to find better, more convincing, approaches to encourage student behavior. It was particularly important to me that this bill offer these incentives at the community college level. Students are increasingly finding that these institutions offer the best match to their educational needs. It will be at the community college level that we can excite many new students who might have chosen other specialities. Reversing the trends I've described won't happen overnight, it will take many years. But the future benefits to our your people and to our nation are immense. I'm pleased to join the co-sponsors of this important bill in seeking to address this very real issue.