Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for acting quickly last summer in sending support to the Los Alamos community following the Cerro Grande fires. This swift response, coupled with the work of County officials, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers helped control another act of mother nature that befell Los Alamos this past week. Torrential rainstorms struck the region resulting in substantial flooding. In some areas the water swelled 60 feet as 1.75 inches of rain fell in less than one hour. Roads flooded and pavement was uprooted. Although at least six homes were evacuated, post-fire flood mitigation efforts prevented a much greater calamity. Federal and local officials recognized a year ago that some of the fire damage created infrastructure problems that could lead to future flooding. This foresight proved decisive against the rushing floodwaters. For example, the largest bridge in the town of Los Alamos--which spans the Pueblo Canyon--was saved by Congress' action and the efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers. Last year, recognizing the potential for floods, the Corps extended an 18-inch culvert to 7 feet in record time. I visited the culvert site during construction and was very impressed with the skill, dedication, and professionalism of the Corps of Engineers crew. During the recent storms, the water swelled 55 feet and was within five feet from the top of the bridge. The bridge withstood the pressure, which it could not have done without the culvert. Without that culvert, the waters would have flowed over the roadway and probably destroyed the road and bridge. It would have cost $15 million to replace the bridge. More importantly, if the bridge had been destroyed half of the community would have been cut off from the laboratories and from all paved access to services and hospital facilities. Instead of direct access to the town, residents north of the bridge would have been rerouted twenty miles on dirt roads that traverse deep canyons. Fortunately, Mr. President, this culvert and other mitigation measures protected Los Alamos from its second natural disaster in two years. This is in large part due to the actions of my colleagues in Congress, and for this I extend my utmost gratitude. This assistance helped the people of Los Alamos to once again persevere against the odds.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on Friday, June 29, I was necessarily absent because I was needed in New Mexico. Anyone who is familiar to New Mexico knows that water is a matter of life and future for us. On this day, the Department of interior, the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, the State Engineer, the Interstate Stream Commission, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the city of Albuquerque all reached a 3-year agreement regarding one of the endangered species, the Silvery Minnow on the Rio Grande River. There are many parties interested in the needs and recovery of the minnow and many groups have been working on river and riparian ecosystem restoration efforts upstream. The settlement proposal mentions that naturalized refuges are a necessary component of saving the silvery minnow and I remain committed to helping make that happen over the next three years. This agreement temporarily solves one of the most difficult to solve water problems on the Rio Grande. I can't think of an issue that affects more New Mexicans, for this reason I decided that it was essential that I be in New Mexico and therefore, necessarily absent. I would have voted for the First substitute version of the Patients Bill of Rights had I been in Washington.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the supplemental appropriations bill's inclusion of $84 million for the bankrupt Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. From the 1940s through 1971, uranium miners, Federal employees who participated in above-ground nuclear tests, and downwinders from the Nevada test site were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. As a result of this exposure, these individuals contracted debilitating and too often deadly radiation-related cancers and other diseases. These folks helped build our nuclear arsenal--the nuclear arsenal that is responsible, at least in part, for ending the cold war. In 1990, Congress recognized their contribution by passing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to ensure that these individuals and their families were indemnified for their sacrifice and suffering. However, the RECA Trust Fund ran out of money in May, 2000. Consequently, for over a year most eligible claimants have been receiving nothing more than a five-line IOU from the Justice Department explaining that no payments will be made until Congress provides the necessary funds. Some of these claimants are dying while awaiting their payments. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our Nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is unacceptable. The $84 million in supplemental appropriations would help rectify this grave injustice by paying all of last year's approved claims as well as the estimated claims for fiscal year 2001. Passage of this appropriations bill does not end Congress' work. We must also pass the Domenici-authored S. 448 or the Hatch-Domenici bill, S. 898. Both of these bills would make all future payments to approved RECA claimants mandatory and, thus, not subject to the annual appropriations process. It is imperative that America not forget those who have tragically suffered from their work on our Nation's behalf. This supplemental bill is a good step in the right direction.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Ports-to- Plains NAFTA corridor designation through New Mexico, along U.S. Highway 64/87 from Clayton to Raton. From the beginning, I have vigorously supported the proposed route through New Mexico. In fact, while a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I worked to make the proposed route through New Mexico a possibility. Further, representatives from my office attended a public comment meeting on the route in Raton, New Mexico in March 2001. I thought it important that the more than three hundred New Mexicans in attendance know that I was behind them. I have supported the route from the beginning because I knew that it would be good for the people of my state and good for the country. The conclusions of the feasibility study give clear and convincing evidence supporting what I had suspected all along. The route through New Mexico, known as the N-1 route, is the best choice. In order to demonstrate that a particular infrastructure best meets the public interest over another, one must consider a host of factors. Those factors include considering the public's preferences, the cost of the competing projects, and the relative efficiency of implementing each project. The feasibility study concluded that the Ports-to-Plain route best meets this criteria. The traveling public overwhelmingly prefers the route through New Mexico, which carries 28,000 vehicles per day. The competing proposal only has traffic flows of 11,000 vehicles each day. The N-1 route through New Mexico represents the best deal for the taxpayer since it costs $175 million less than the competing route. Last, the route through New Mexico would be the most efficient to implement since sixty-seven percent of the highway has already been programmed for four-lane expansion. The competing route has only programmed thirty-seven percent of the road for crucial four-lane improvements. Furthermore, the State of New Mexico is committed to securing the Ports-to-Plains designation. Evidencing that commitment, the State's Highway Commission recently passed a resolution supporting the Ports-to Plains designation from Dumas, Texas to Raton, New Mexico. I pledge to continue working to ensure that the Ports-to-Plains corridor is designated through New Mexico. The route through Raton, New Mexico is the most efficient and cost effective option for the U.S. taxpayer, furthers the interest of the people of my State, and is supported by the State government.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Ports-to- Plains NAFTA corridor designation through New Mexico, along U.S. Highway 64/87 from Clayton to Raton. From the beginning, I have vigorously supported the proposed route through New Mexico. In fact, while a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I worked to make the proposed route through New Mexico a possibility. Further, representatives from my office attended a public comment meeting on the route in Raton, New Mexico in March 2001. I thought it important that the more than three hundred New Mexicans in attendance know that I was behind them. I have supported the route from the beginning because I knew that it would be good for the people of my state and good for the country. The conclusions of the feasibility study give clear and convincing evidence supporting what I had suspected all along. The route through New Mexico, known as the N-1 route, is the best choice. In order to demonstrate that a particular infrastructure best meets the public interest over another, one must consider a host of factors. Those factors include considering the public's preferences, the cost of the competing projects, and the relative efficiency of implementing each project. The feasibility study concluded that the Ports-to-Plain route best meets this criteria. The traveling public overwhelmingly prefers the route through New Mexico, which carries 28,000 vehicles per day. The competing proposal only has traffic flows of 11,000 vehicles each day. The N-1 route through New Mexico represents the best deal for the taxpayer since it costs $175 million less than the competing route. Last, the route through New Mexico would be the most efficient to implement since sixty-seven percent of the highway has already been programmed for four-lane expansion. The competing route has only programmed thirty-seven percent of the road for crucial four-lane improvements. Furthermore, the State of New Mexico is committed to securing the Ports-to-Plains designation. Evidencing that commitment, the State's Highway Commission recently passed a resolution supporting the Ports-to Plains designation from Dumas, Texas to Raton, New Mexico. I pledge to continue working to ensure that the Ports-to-Plains corridor is designated through New Mexico. The route through Raton, New Mexico is the most efficient and cost effective option for the U.S. taxpayer, furthers the interest of the people of my State, and is supported by the State government.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that would provide a Federal tax credit for oil and natural gas produced from Indian lands. This legislation will serve two important purposes. It will provide an immediate boost to tribal economies, and it will provide additional domestic sources of energy to ease our growing energy crisis. Even though Indian lands offer a fertile source of oil and natural gas, many disincentives to exploration and production exist. For example, the Supreme Court permits the double taxation of oil and natural gas produced from tribal lands, which unfairly subjects producers to both State and tribal taxation. Furthermore, tribal economies are not sufficiently diversified to allow for tribal tax incentives for oil and natural gas development. Finally, Congress has enacted innumerable incentives for energy development on Federal lands, which has made production from this land far more profitable. As a result, Indian lands are too often overlooked as a source of domestic energy. This legislation would remedy these disadvantages by providing Federal tax credits for oil and natural gas production on tribal lands. These tax credits would be available to both the tribe as royalty owner and the producer. Tribes would benefit in two ways: they could broaden their tax base from substantially increased oil and gas production; and they could market their share of the tax credit to generate additional revenue. These additional revenues would allow tribes to strengthen their infrastructure and improve the vital services that they provide to their citizens. Unfortunately, the recent economic prosperity has not been extended to many Indian tribes. This is the reason why these tax incentives are so crucial. They will provide a much-needed shot in the arm to tribal economic development and will compensate for the discriminatory double taxation that hinders energy production. In recent years, many people have criticized the growth of the gaming industry on reservations. However, these critics have failed to suggest viable alternatives for tribal economic development. This legislation would supply strong opportunity for entrepreneurship in a vital national industry and would bring many more tribes into the economic mainstream. Finally, this legislation would have the added benefit of creating an additional source of domestic energy. In our efforts to craft a comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we have been searching for additional sources of domestic energy. In this search, we must not overlook tribal oil and gas production. America's energy supply is a patchwork of various domestic and international sources, and the addition of tribal lands will only strengthen the seams of this patchwork and decrease our risky reliance on foreign sources. Therefore, I am proud today to introduce this legislation to boost the production of oil and natural gas on Indian lands and to strengthen our domestic energy supply.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that would provide a Federal tax credit for oil and natural gas produced from Indian lands. This legislation will serve two important purposes. It will provide an immediate boost to tribal economies, and it will provide additional domestic sources of energy to ease our growing energy crisis. Even though Indian lands offer a fertile source of oil and natural gas, many disincentives to exploration and production exist. For example, the Supreme Court permits the double taxation of oil and natural gas produced from tribal lands, which unfairly subjects producers to both State and tribal taxation. Furthermore, tribal economies are not sufficiently diversified to allow for tribal tax incentives for oil and natural gas development. Finally, Congress has enacted innumerable incentives for energy development on Federal lands, which has made production from this land far more profitable. As a result, Indian lands are too often overlooked as a source of domestic energy. This legislation would remedy these disadvantages by providing Federal tax credits for oil and natural gas production on tribal lands. These tax credits would be available to both the tribe as royalty owner and the producer. Tribes would benefit in two ways: they could broaden their tax base from substantially increased oil and gas production; and they could market their share of the tax credit to generate additional revenue. These additional revenues would allow tribes to strengthen their infrastructure and improve the vital services that they provide to their citizens. Unfortunately, the recent economic prosperity has not been extended to many Indian tribes. This is the reason why these tax incentives are so crucial. They will provide a much-needed shot in the arm to tribal economic development and will compensate for the discriminatory double taxation that hinders energy production. In recent years, many people have criticized the growth of the gaming industry on reservations. However, these critics have failed to suggest viable alternatives for tribal economic development. This legislation would supply strong opportunity for entrepreneurship in a vital national industry and would bring many more tribes into the economic mainstream. Finally, this legislation would have the added benefit of creating an additional source of domestic energy. In our efforts to craft a comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we have been searching for additional sources of domestic energy. In this search, we must not overlook tribal oil and gas production. America's energy supply is a patchwork of various domestic and international sources, and the addition of tribal lands will only strengthen the seams of this patchwork and decrease our risky reliance on foreign sources. Therefore, I am proud today to introduce this legislation to boost the production of oil and natural gas on Indian lands and to strengthen our domestic energy supply.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator let me speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. Education no longer simply involves students learning the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the new, highly technical millennium. The computer and the Internet have become integrated into every aspect of our lives, and are becoming essential teaching tools in our schools and a basic component of any classroom. To meet this challenge, we must strive for innovative ideas and to determine exactly how we can maximize the Federal Government's resources because: Even on its best day the Federal Government can never be a replacement for local administrators, educators, and parents. Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly what our schools and students need than government officials here in Washington. Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. My point is simple, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work in New Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our States, school districts, and schools. I want to take a couple of minutes and provide my perspective on how we arrive at the point we are today with the BEST bill. Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Education. The task force produced: ``Prospects for Reform: The State of American Education and the Federal role.'' The report asked the simple question of ``how well are our children doing?'' The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement had stagnated over the past two decades even though America had established a record of near universal access and completion of high school. Thus, the report concluded that we must address the issue of a quality educational system. In other words the need for academic competence and rigor. Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist soon introduced the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 commonly referred to as Ed-Flex. The bill simply said: one size does not fit all and thus, States should be allowed to waive-out of the regulations pertaining to certain Federal K-12 education programs. Ed-Flex already existed as part of a demonstration program and Senator Frist's bill merely sought to provide all 50 States within that same flexibility. The Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 98-1 and within a month the President had signed the measure into law. Unfortunately, after the passage of Ed-Flex for a variety of reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12 system. Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994 there is no approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely providing more funding. In 1996 the Federal Government spend about $23 billion on education and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student achievement. Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the matching results. For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was 212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA. Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA has nearly doubled to $20 million, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained at 212. In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22 percent in 1998. I submit that we are not receiving a very good return on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no corresponding improvement. Imagine savings a greater and greater portion of your paycheck each week and after 5 years actually having less money. I think it is fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these results, if instead of students we were talking about our retirement savings. Thus, we are now debating the BEST bill because many of us believe we simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success. The bill fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the best educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater and greater sums of money without any accountability. Make no mistake, we have not abandoned our commitment to providing the necessary resources to our States and school districts. In fiscal year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion. President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal requested a $19.1 billion authorization for ESEA for fiscal year 2002, a 9-percent increase. Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 budget resolution includes the President's 9-percent increase in federal education spending for reading education, the Individuals and Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training. I think it is also important to note that on May 3 when the Senate began debate, the BEST bill already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA in FY 2002, a 57-percent increase over 2001 and nearly $190 billion over the authorization period of FY 2002-2008. If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to hear how much spending we have added since May 3: $11 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $38.8 billion in FY 2002, an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001. $211 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $416 billion over the seven year authorization period of the bill. And of that total, $112 billion is mandatory spending under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST bill follows the President's promise to leave no child behind by ensuring academic success through a fresh approach to education like: Accountability. Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for failure. Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math proficiency annually. In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will be tested. Also, the State will receive an additional $4.5 million next year and more than $33 million over the next 7 years to offset any new costs. Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent failure. Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face corrective action, parents will be given the option of public school choice and supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a school's persistent failure could lead to reconstitution. Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For instance, title II of the BEST bill created a new State teacher development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by combining all of the current teacher funding. States will have the option to use the funding for professional development, teacher mentoring, merit pay, teacher testing, as well as recruiting and training high-quality teachers. For example, New Mexico maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio of 15.2 and under the bill will no longer be required to use a portion of these funds for class size reduction. Instead, New Mexico will have the option to use that money for teacher recruitment and retention programs or maybe additional training. The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance. The bill includes the President's Reading First initiative to ensure all children and kindergarten through third grade become proficient readers by the end of third grade. The bill also includes programs to create Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After-School Care, and provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction. Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school report cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's share of federal funds towards tutoring or after-school academic services. Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out of a persistently unsafe public school to another public school of their choice. As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the future. Before I conclude, I want to briefly talk about several provisions that are of personal importance to me: First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me earlier this year to introduce the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply math, science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of our schools. Our bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator Cochran and seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. I believe our bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration program to increase character education that was contained in the last ESEA bill. Since 1994, the Department Of Education has made $25 million in ``seed money'' grants available to 28 States to develop character education programs. Currently, there are 36 States that have either received federal funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or encouraging character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there is a permanent and dedicated funding source available for character education programs. I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but the additional resources to face emerging challenges. Thus, I am extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment authored by Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental health services by developing links between school districts and the local mental health system. School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better coordinate mental health services by: Improving preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services available to students; providing crisis intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of mental health services and continuing mental health services; and educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel about the services. Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for our children. Earlier this year I introduced the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001. I am very pleased to see elements of that bill included in the pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate has accepted my amendment that will allow States the option of using Teacher Quality funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers. Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses for the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The centers would also be responsible for creating programs to further teacher recruitment and retention within the state. Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on this important issue and final passage of this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the ``Better Education for Students and Teachers Act.'' Education no longer simply involves students learning the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rather, students must possess the resources to compete and succeed as we proceed into the new, highly technical millennium. The computer and the Internet have become integrated into every aspect of our lives, and are becoming essential teaching tools in our schools and a basic component of any classroom. To meet this challenge, we must strive for innovative ideas and to determine exactly how we can maximize the Federal government's resources because: Even on its best day the Federal Government can never be a replacement for local administrators, educators, and parents. Simply put, New Mexicans are in a far better position to know exactly what our schools and students need than government officials here in Washington. Most Washingtonians probably do not know the Corona School District has 82 students, the Deming School District has 5,300 students, and the Albuquerque School District has 85,000 students. Additionally, the Gallup School District encompasses nearly 5,000 square miles, an area greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. My point is simple, a one-size fits all approach cannot work in New Mexico and will not work in many areas of our country. Consequently, we must have solutions that are flexible and meet the diverse needs of our States, school districts, and schools. I would like to take a couple of minutes and provide my perspective on how we arrived at the point we are today with the BEST Bill. Not too long ago during the mid 1990's a number of us came to the conclusion that the current K-12 education status quo could no longer be maintained. I think this realization may have been spurred by Senator Frist's excellent work as the chair of the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Education. The Task Force produced: Prospects for Reform: The State of American Education and the Federal Role. The report asked the simple question of ``how well are our children doing?'' The answer was mediocre at best because student achievement had stagnated over the past two decades even though America had established a record of near universal access and completion of high school. Thus, the report concluded that we must address the issue of a quality educational system. In other words the need for academic competence and rigor. Building upon the excellent work of the Task Force, Senator Frist soon introduced the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999'' commonly referred to as ``Ed-Flex.'' The Bill simply said: one-size does not fit all and thus, States should be allowed to waive-out of the regulations pertaining to certain Federal K-12 Education programs. ``Ed-Flex already existed as part of a demonstration program and Senator Frist's Bill merely sought to provide all fifty states with that same flexibility. The Senate passed the Bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 98-1 and within a month the President had signed the measure into law. Unfortunately, after the passage of ``Ed-Flex'' for a variety of reasons there was not any further fundamental changes made to our K-12 system. Instead, since the last reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994 there is one approach that we learned is a complete failure: merely providing more funding. In 1996 the Federal Government spent about $23 billion on education and within a few short years the number ballooned to over $42 billion in FY 2001. The logical conclusion is that a near doubling of educational funding would result in dramatic improvements in student achievement. Sadly, for all of our funding we simply do not have the matching results. For instance, in 1996 the average reading score for a 4th grader was 212 and the Federal Government spent about $11 billion on the ESEA. Five years later, Federal spending on the ESEA had nearly doubled to $20 billion, while the average reading score of a 4th grader remained at 212. In New Mexico, the number of 4th graders testing at or above proficient in reading actually fell from 23 percent in 1992 to 22 percent in 1998. I would submit that we are not receiving a very good return on our investment, a near doubling of funding with no corresponding improvement. Imagine saving a greater and greater portion of your paycheck each week and after five years actually having less money. I think it is fair to say that very few individuals would stand for these results, if instead of students we were talking about our retirement savings. Thus, we are now debating the BEST Bill because many of us believe we simply must have a new approach to measuring academic success. The Bill fundamentally alters the practice of Washington deciding the best educational practices and then distributing increasingly greater and greater sums of money without any accountability. Make no mistake, we have not abandoned our commitment to providing the necessary resources to our States and school districts. In fiscal year 2001 ESEA spending totaled $18.4 billion. President Bush's FY 2002 Budget proposal requested a $19.1 billion authorization for ESEA for FY 2002, a nine percent increase. Building upon the President's proposal, the FY 2002 Budget Resolution includes the President's nine percent increase in federal education spending for reading education, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and teacher training. I think it is also important to note that on May 3 when the Senate began debate, the BEST Bill already authorized $27.7 billion for ESEA in FY 2002, a 57-percent increase over 2001 and nearly $190 billion over the authorization period of FY 2002-2008. If one does not believe that is enough then you will be interested to hear how much spending we have added since May 3: $11 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $38.8 billion in FY 2002, an increase of 120 percent over FY 2001; $211 billion in ESEA and other education spending for a total of $416 billion over the seven year authorization period of the Bill; and of that total, $112 billion is mandatory spending under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. With the preceding as a backdrop, I believe the BEST Bill follows the President's promise to ``Leave No Child Behind'' by ensuring academic success through a fresh approach to education. Our schools will be held accountable for their progress in educating our children through high standards, testing, and consequences for failure. Every child in grades 3-8 will be tested in reading and math proficiency annually. In New Mexico alone about 151,000 students will be tested. Also, the State will receive an additional $4.5 million next year and more than $33 million over the next seven years to offset any new costs. Instead of simply continuing to receive increased Federal funding in the face of failure, schools will now face consequences for persistent failure. Schools failing to demonstrate improvement will face corrective action, parents will be given the option of public school choice and supplemental services for their children, and ultimately a school's persistent failure could lead to reconstitution. Consolidation of duplicative education programs will provide maximum local flexibility to focus on improving student achievement. For instance, Title II of the BEST Bill creates a new State Teacher Development grant program with a substantially larger pot of money by combining all of the current teacher funding. States will have the option to use the funding for professional development; teacher mentoring; merit pay; teacher testing; as well as recruiting and training high quality teachers. For example, New Mexico maintains a commendable student-teacher ratio of 15.2 and under the Bill will no longer be required to use a portion of these funds for class size reduction. Instead, New Mexico will have the option to use that money for teacher recruitment and retention programs or maybe additional training. The new accountability provisions will ensure that historic increases in Federal education funding will be based upon school performance. The Bill includes the President's ``Reading First'' initiative to ensure all children in kindergarten through third grade become proficient readers by the end of third grade. The Bill also includes programs to create Math and Science Partnerships, Strengthen After- School Care, and provide for Early Childhood Reading Instruction. Parents and the public will be given detailed school-by-school Report Cards on the performance of their schools. Parents will have the option to transfer their child from a failing public school to an effective public school with transportation provided or to redirect their child's share of Federal funds toward tutoring or after-school academic services. Parents will be given the option to transfer their child out of a persistently unsafe public school to another public school of their choice. As Congress proceeds, one of its primary missions will be to determine what is working, what is not working, and what can be improved to give our children a better chance of succeeding in the future. Before I conclude, I would like to briefly talk about several provisions that are of personal importance to me. First, Senator Dodd and a bipartisan group of Senators joined me earlier this year to introduce the ``Strong Character for Strong Schools Act.'' I think it is important to note that reform does not only apply math, science, and reading; instead we must also reform the culture of our schools. Our Bill will be part of an amendment offered by Senator Cochran and seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. I believe our Bill builds upon the highly successful demonstration program to increase character education that was contained in the last ESEA Bill. Since 1994, the Department of Education has made $25 million in ``seed money'' grants available to 28 states to develop character education programs. Currently, there are 36 States that have either received Federal funding, or have enacted their own laws mandating or encouraging character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there is a permanent and dedicated funding source available for character education programs. I also believe schools must not only have the resources for core missions like teaching reading, writing, math, and the sciences, but the additional resources to face emerging challenges. Thus, I am extremely pleased the Senate has accepted an amendment authored by Senator Kennedy and I to increase student access to mental health services by developing links between school districts and the local mental health system. School districts would partner with mental health agencies, juvenile justice authorities, and any other relevant entities to better coordinate mental health services by: improving preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services available to students; providing crisis intervention services and appropriate referrals for students in need of mental health services and continuing mental health services; and educating teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel about the services. Finally, we must provide our school districts and schools with the resources to both recruit and retain the best available teachers for our children. Earlier this year I introduced the ``Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001.'' I am very pleased to see elements of that Bill included in the pending legislation. I am also grateful the Senate has accepted my amendment that will allow States the option of using Teacher Quality funds for the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers. Teacher Recruitment Centers will serve as statewide clearinghouses for the recruitment and placement of K-12 teachers. The Centers would also be responsible for creating programs to further teacher recruitment and retention within the state. Thank you and I look forward to the working with my colleagues on this important issue and final passage of this Bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it has been the history of the Senate that we authorize legislation and we appropriate or pay for legislation that has been adopted. In this case, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution stands that on its head and says, whatever it is we voted on to be authorized, we shall fund. The appropriators shall pay for it. Now, historically we always authorize more than we can afford. We are doing the same thing in this bill. As a matter of fact, if that sense of the Senate were adopted, we would increase education 100 percent in the first year--not 10, not 20, not 30, but 100 percent. Over the next 7 years, we would increase it by $300 billion. This has nothing to do with the President's commitments. It has to do with the Senate taking a typical authorization bill and adding all kinds of nice, good, wholesome, wonderful amendments that we are not going to pay for because we don't have the money. The appropriators will pay for what they can afford. We cannot tell the appropriators in advance; they have a myriad of programs to look at in terms of priorities, and we would be telling them it is the sense of the majority of Members saying: Appropriators, you will; you shall; there is no escape; you will pay for every amendment that has been adopted as if it were appropriated.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator if he has better numbers than I do. The bill currently authorizes at least 30. Are you suggesting that is 37? I will live with your numbers. Does the Senator think it is $37 billion we have authorized in this bill?

Mr. DOMENICI. Let's say it is somewhere between 30 and 37 and perhaps even between 30 and 40 is authorized in this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, I am certainly not trying to avoid that. I am very prepared to answer it. If you will relax for a minute and let me answer it, we will all have a nice afternoon. First, let me say it may shock everyone to hear this, but frankly the Appropriations Committee will decide what that number is. In all honesty, they will decide that. But they won't decide it based on this authorization bill. They will do it based upon what they want to establish as the priorities for expenditures for fiscal year 2002. But if the Senator wants to know what numbers were offered by the budget as it cleared the Congress--and these are not binding; these are assumptions--then I will tell you that the budget resolution assumed $6.2 billion more than the President. So it is $6.2 billion added to $18.4 billion which makes it a total of $24.6 billion that is assumed in the budget resolution as being fundable. I am not going to stand here and say they will fund that much, nor am I going to say they will fund that little. The truth is, unless the Senate chose today to pass a statute and it got signed by the President and it said the appropriators are going to appropriate and they are hereby ordered to appropriate the amount of money contained in this bill, then there is nothing we can do about it. They are going to do what they think is right based upon the available resources and what the Senate at large decides as these appropriations come forward. I did not come to the floor to prejudge what they would do. I came to the floor to make sure everybody understands that an authorizing bill is very different than an appropriations bill. It has been different forever. I shouldn't say forever, but essentially for about 70 years we have had both appropriations and authorizations. They really are not the same. I regret to say we have even appropriated when there is no authorization for many parts of our Government. We have not authorized for years and the appropriators pay for the function of Government anyway. I am comfortable that this Senate and the Appropriations Committee will maximize, as I indicated, the resources they put into education. I am confident because it has been the will of this Senate over and over as we vote that we put more rather than less in education. So I think that will happen. Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that ``maximum'' is a dictionary definition. It is not a number definition. It just says the most you can. Whatever you are looking at, do to the extent possible. Do the most for education. That is what I put in my resolve clause because I think, honestly, to vote for anything other than that is to deny the reality of what is going to happen, prejudged, preordained by the rules we follow in the Senate. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment I send to the desk be a substitute for the amendment that has been previously stated to be a Domenici amendment. This is the Domenici amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to read this to everyone so there will be an understanding of where we are. First, I did not have enough time this afternoon or I would have searched the records of legislation we passed that comes out of committees that have authorizing authority. Clearly, the committee that reported this bill that has been debated so mightily on or about May 3, with intervening time used for some other bills, is an authorizing committee. There is no authority in the committee that my good friend Senator Kennedy chairs to appropriate money. I do not think anybody will argue with that point. The appropriators each year appropriate money in various appropriations bills, one of which will contain the appropriated money for education. What we have been doing in the meantime on this education bill is very typical of what we do on any new authorization bill. People bring to the floor amendments to the authorizing bill that says we want to authorize a different program with different amounts of money covering different groups of people so that historically in the U.S. Congress, whenever authorizing legislation has been passed, it is, for the most part, substantially higher than the amount appropriated by the Appropriations Committee, which has the single and sole authority to appropriate money. I do not believe anyone is going to stand in this Chamber today and say the education committee appropriated this money and each Senator who offered an amendment that was voted on, whether it was adopted 95-0 or by 2 votes, whatever the case may be--nobody is going to say that amendment was appropriating money, making money available to the Department of Education to do certain things. Those amendments and the basic underlying bill create a policy or an authorizing gamut from which the appropriators fund some or all of what is in authorizing legislation. We have set about in the Senate to adopt many amendments. I am quite certain that when the appropriations bill comes to the floor, if we want to take every one of these amendments and stand up before the Senate and say, ``I want to offer this amendment to the appropriations bill because I want to add more money,'' I am sure it will be considered. The question is, will it be adopted? The question is, will it be automatic? I think the answer is, we do not know whether it will be adopted when it comes to appropriating, and certainly there is no question that it has not yet been appropriated. I say in this amendment--and I think everybody who is concerned about education funding ought to vote for it--the following: This bill before us, without the remaining amendments that are still to be adopted, currently authorizes at least $30 billion in discretionary spending for elementary and secondary education programs in fiscal year 2002--$30 billion at least that we voted on in the bill and with the authorizing amendments. Likewise, if you take the multiple years covered by this authorization bill, 2002 to 2008, the bill authorizes more than $300 billion for these same programs, the ones we are currently funding in the next finding I made. Currently we are funding these programs at $18.4 billion a year. We are almost doubling that, and then over a number of years we are more than doubling the funding that is currently being applied to these programs. After I make these findings, I conclude very simply: It is therefore the Sense of the Senate that: The Appropriations Committee shall fund the authorizations in this bill to the maximum extent possible. That means that is exactly what is going to happen, and we ought to go ahead and recognize it and urge the appropriators to do this. It does not matter what we say in this bill. Unless we choose to take over the reins of appropriating and put it in this bill, it does not matter what we vote for, it matters what the appropriators give to fund this bill. They already know that whatever the budget is, education is given the highest priority. In fact, education of a comparable nature to what I have been speaking of goes up 11.4 percent in the basic budget of the President and in the basic budget that was adopted by the Congress. Even those numbers are not binding because the appropriators will decide out of all the priorities how much they want to take away from other programs or exceed the budget to put more of that in education. That is the prerogative of the committee with the consensus and, in some instances, perhaps a 60-vote majority being required. The Senate and the House will decide how much of the authorizing bill that is going to be adopted either Friday or next week shall be funded by the appropriators. I certainly do not come before the Senate saying I know which programs ought to be funded by the appropriators. I happen to be on the Appropriations Committee, but in due course they will have their own hearings, as we do all the time. This is not a rarity, to pass an authorizing bill that has much more in it than the appropriators pay for, and they are not doing anything wrong by not funding it as much as is authorized. That is the prerogative of the appropriators. In simple language, I hope everybody who is interested in maximizing the appropriation of money to the education programs, all of which are encapsulated in this bill which Senator Kennedy has been managing since they took the majority and Senator Judd Gregg has managed on our side-- it is a very good bill, one that for the first time has some major changes. We might, in fact, look back in a few years and say that bill that was debated all those days caused us to do some things very differently than we have in the past. Who knows, if you listen to the President, if you listen to some in this Chamber who advocate these new ideas, it may very well be that we will have improved the results of our National Government's money going to States for school systems that are either run by the district or by county. I compliment those who have participated in this bill. I voted for a number of the amendments, but certainly the truth is that the Appropriations Committee will decide how much of that they can afford under the budget they will have before them, and the Senate will decide on an appropriations bill as the matter comes up: How many more of these new programs do you want to fund in the year 2002? I believe the Senate has adopted many provisions that will not be funded. Certainly, I am not talking about title I, but I am talking about many of the amendments, maybe even some that this Senator has offered that are part of this very large authorizing bill. But I will not be surprised if some of those I have offered and some of those others have offered will not be funded by the appropriators as we work our way through the 13 appropriations bills. It is all right with me if Senators want to say everything else will have to be reduced and changed because we are going to fund in appropriations every single amendment that has been offered to this bill, we will fund them in their entirety. If one wants to vote for that, that is fine. Perhaps one can vote for that, and perhaps one can vote for the Domenici amendment that says, do the maximum appropriators; do the maximum amount you can under the budget restraints you will be living under as appropriators.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, I am pleased to.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Resolution 16 designating August 16, 2001, as National Airborne Day. It is only too appropriate that Senator Thurmond lead the charge for designating one day annually on which we recognize the contributions of our airborne divisions in the military. The greatest amphibious invasion in military history was at Normandy. On June 6, 1944, under the leadership of General Eisenhower, an invasion force of over 2.8 million military members, including 1,627,000 Americans gathered in Southern England. These forty-five divisions included Americans, Brits, Canadians, French and Poles fighting alongside one another. Among those forty-five divisions were 13,000 paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. These paratroopers and glider troops began their assault at 1:00 a.m. on June 6. They were spread out over 50 miles between the Cotentin Peninsula and the Orne River. Met with ferocious and lethal German resistance, by the end of the day the 101st had suffered 1,240 casualties, and the 82nd lost 1,259 men. Then 41- year-old Strom Thurmond survived and went on to win five battle stars. We suffered heavy casualties in those first hours of fighting on the coasts of Northern France. U.S. casualties alone totaled 6,603 men. However, D Day marked the first step in our push toward victory in Europe. Not only does D Day mark the beginning of the end of the tyrannical forces unleashed on the Western European continent in the 1930s, it represents the beginning of many decades of struggle to reconstruct democratic and free Nations from the rubble of World War II. This week we celebrate the 57th Anniversary of D-Day. I stand to recognize the valor of that greatest generation who persevered to protect our freedom. Undeniably, the airborne forces played a vital role in achieving victory. The Airborne divisions that fought on D-Day are still represented in today's Army, with the 82nd in Fort Bragg, NC, and the 101st in Fort Campbell, KY. In the last sixty years, our airborne forces have performed in important military and peace-keeping operations in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Sinai, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. On August 16, 2001, the 61st anniversary of the first official parachute jump by the Parachute Test Platoon, we will recognize the role of part and current patriots in our airborne forces. I thank Senator Thurmond for his unyielding courage as a paratrooper and his vision as a leader. I strongly support this resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 310(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, provides the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee with authority to revise committee allocations, functional levels, and budgetary aggregates for a reconciliation conference report which fulfills an instruction with respect to both outlays and revenues. The chairman's authority under 310(c) may be exercised if the following conditions have been satisfied: 1. The conferees report a bill which changes the mix of the instructed revenue and outlay changes by not more than 20 percent of the sum of the components of the instruction, and, 2. The conference agreement still complies with the overall reconciliation instruction. I find that the conference report on H.R. 1836 satisfies the two conditions above and pursuant to my authority under section 310(c), I hereby submit revisions to H. Con. Res. 83, the 2002 budget resolution. The attached tables show the current 2002 budget resolution figures as well as the revised committee allocations, functional levels, and budgetary aggregates.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material in the conference agreement on H.R. 1836 considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. To the best of my knowledge, H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, contains no material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. submitting changes to committee allocations, functional levels, and budgetary aggregates

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Viet Dinh, the President's nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development. I have had the pleasure of knowing him both professionally and personally over the past several years and cannot imagine a more qualified candidate for this position. Professor Dinh's journey began 23 years ago on a small fishing boat off the coast of Vietnam. For 12 days, the ten-year-old Viet and 84 others fought storms, hunger, and gunfire as their boat drifted in the South China Sea. Fortunately, Viet, his mother, and six siblings, reached a refugee camp after coming ashore in Malaysia. After being admitted to the United States Viet's family arrived in Oregon and later moved to California, where Viet became a U.S. citizen. Those early years presented many challenges for Viet and his family. They had little money and worked long hours in the berry fields. Moreover, Viet's father had been incarcerated in Vietnam because of his role as a city councilman. It was not until 1983 that they were finally reunited after his father's successful escape from Vietnam. Despite this tumultuous beginning, Dinh persevered. More than that, he excelled. Perhaps those early obstacles hardened Viet's resolve and fueled his rapid ascent through the legal profession. Viet graduated magna cum laude from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a class marshal and an Olin Research Fellow in law and economics. He served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Shortly after Viet completed his Supreme Court clerkship, he came to work for the U.S. Senate, where I had the opportunity to work with him for the first time. He quickly demonstrated his outstanding legal ability, superb professional judgment, and fine character. Professor Dinh's record of achievement continued in academia. Viet currently is a professor of law at Georgetown University, where he is the deputy director of the Asian Law and Policy Studies Program. In addition to his expertise in Asian law, Professor Dinh is accomplished in constitutional law, corporate law, and international law. He has also served as counsel to the special master mediating lawsuits by Holocaust victims against German and Austrian banks. Since he left the Senate, I have called on him from time to time for counsel on constitutional issues. On each occasion, Viet exhibited a comprehensive knowledge of the law and extraordinary energy. In closing, I believe that Professor Dinh's character, along with his distinguished academic and professional accomplishments, make him uniquely qualified to serve in the Department of Justice. It is, thus, with great pleasure that I will vote for his confirmation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. We have 3 minutes? Mr. President, fellow Senators, let me first say that in 1974 we changed the law that applies to the Senate with reference to how long you take on a budget resolution and what kind of amendments you can offer in a reconciliation bill. That was a law changed because we decided for the first time in the history of our country we would have a budget. We didn't have budgets before then, believe it or not. That budget process was invented then by that statute and the Senate, by an incredibly high vote--I think it was everybody but one--voted for that, including those who do not think we ought to use reconciliation to raise taxes and lower taxes both. This was voted in. You will find since then that on three occasions the Senate has spoken on the issue of whether or not you can cut taxes in reconciliation. Three times we voted that that is appropriate. We have, on this process, this year. There was a vote in this body where Senators voted on whether we would use reconciliation in this bill for tax cuts. The whole argument was presented against it, on which my good friend Senator Byrd took a long time and presented all the history on it. I did the opposite. We voted. By a 51-49 vote we said let's use reconciliation and let's use it to cut taxes. Then we voted a resolution that said how much the taxes should be cut, and we told the Finance Committee to return the bill, which is now before us. I do not know how you can claim we are violating anybody's rights. We have voted on those issues. They are the law of the land. When you want to repeal or change the 1974 law, do so. It might need amending. It might need changing. Three times we voted on a reconciliation bill to cut taxes--three times. This is the fourth time. But this time we even took up the issue: Should we do it or not? And we said yes. With that in mind I must say to my friends on the other side, it looks to me like, when we have spent a total of 31 and a half hours including the votes on this bill, and we have had 32 votes and only 1 passed. It was kind of irrelevant--a good amendment; a Senator on this side offered it, good amendment but actually it had nothing to do with the budget, the one that passed. I think everybody in America should know this bill is going to get a significant majority, bipartisan, of U.S. Senators under this particular set of facts that I just described. So, if we have not debated it enough, how long should it be debated? If we have not done everything can you do on this bill to make the two major points the Democrats want to make, I don't know how many more votes, how much more time you need? I yield the floor.