Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I know we have an area of mutual concern with reference to defense cleanup that has to do with your State and has to do with two or three others, not as much with my State as other defense issues. I told you awhile ago that I was going to do my very best. We are short a significant amount of money in the President's budget in terms of cleanup which will have a big effect on Idaho, your State, and South Carolina. I want you to know, I am still working on that. Contrary to what some people would think, we can do it under this budget. We are going to work very hard with you to see that we can.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator permit me to talk to Senator Murray about a mutual problem?

Mr. DOMENICI. Also, let me say the economy is not booming as much as we like, and there is $100 billion in it that was sought after by Democrats for upfront stimulus between this year and next year. That is going to go right into the pockets of Americans. It is going to go into the pockets of the neighbors and nephews and grandchildren of the seniors whom they are trying to scare in that we cannot keep our faith with Social Security and give people back some of their money. We can. We will. And it will not touch Social Security. So don't get worked up about it, our friends who are seniors. If you want to call our offices, we will give you the numbers. Those numbers are invented. Since they use all kinds of invective here on the floor about our budget resolution, they are invented numbers. That is not accusing anyone. They just borrowed them from somewhere. They are not in the budget. I will be pleased to yield the remainder of my time, except I want to say we were asked to balance the budget before we would give any tax relief. We have. It will be. We were asked to reduce the debt. We have. It will be. It will be reduced dramatically. The real numbers are $3.2 trillion in debt. It will be down to $0.8 trillion under this budget resolution, a huge reduction in debt. What are we arguing about? It is as big as you can get. Probably you cannot do any more. Go onto everything they ask, that everybody says this budget should do before we give Americans a tax break. We have done them all. We tried. They are inventing new ones. Every time we are on the floor, they are inventing new ones. I don't kid anybody. This is not a budget that Senator Harkin would put forward. This is not a budget resolution he would write. I don't know what he would write, I don't know what he would support. Clearly, he came and spoke his piece, and that is fine. He didn't vote for it even when it left the Senate when 15 Democrats did. Nor did most of the people who are speaking against it. They didn't even vote for it when it passed the Senate with 15 Democrats in support of it, with a lower tax number than the President wanted and that we wanted. So I want to wrap my arguments up very simply. Everything a budget could be asked to do before we give any money back to our American people to grow our economy even better, we have done it all. Every time we try to do a reasonable tax reduction plan, we find new conditions and new things we ought to be doing as a Government. What? Before we can give the American people a tax break? Give us a break. How many more conditions? There will be more tonight. We have a couple of hours. There will be more tomorrow morning. We have an hour or so. There will be more things we should have been doing before we give the American people a tax break. I guarantee you that is what it will be about--more things the Government ought to do and less and less about what people should get. Give back to them some of their money. I yield the rest of your time. I am sorry I used it. I ask unanimous consent that he have 10 minutes nonetheless.

Mr. DOMENICI. No, it does not.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield on your time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is just amazing to this Senator. I don't know where they get the numbers. Somebody is giving them to them. Somebody is making a lot of assumptions that are not in this budget resolution. We do not need a lesson from anyone about whether or not we should dip into Social Security trust funds for purposes of spending in this budget. We were the first to put before the Congress of the United States a lockbox concept. By the time we were finished, everybody took credit for it--lock in the Social Security trust fund. That is a lockbox. Before we were finished, President Clinton was for it. He had not been for it before. We start it; everybody takes credit. Let me say to the American people, whenever you want to give the American people a tax cut of sizable proportions--not as big as the Kennedy tax cut, not as big as the Reagan tax cut--just try to give the taxpayers some of their money back out of this huge surplus, there is no end to excuses as to why we cannot do it. The latest one is: Seniors, you ought to be angry about this tax cut, even though it is going to your children and grandchildren and to your friends because, they are saying on that side, we are spending it; we are spending part of your trust fund money for tax cuts. Not true. And it should not be a condition precedent to cutting taxes. Next, what do they insist on? You can't touch Medicare. We didn't have to learn that from anyone. We did not, we do not, and wherever those numbers came from, they are not the numbers in the budget. They are not what we assume will be spent. They are assuming the alternative minimum tax will be passed. They are assuming defense will get $370 billion. They are assuming education will get $146 billion more. How are we responsible when we do not even have that in our budget? We don't know what is going to happen there. What is in our budget does not use Medicare, does not use Social Security. I believe every time we have a significant tax cut going to Americans so the economy will keep going, that is the best thing for seniors. Keep an economy that is booming. What do we boom on? Low tax rates. That is what America's economy expects. So you do that to help over the long run, and you get excuses that you have not done everything yet that is necessary.

Mr. DOMENICI. We will do that following the Senator from Alabama, and if any other Republicans want to speak, any way that is fair. Does the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. How long would she like? Why don't we just set it in place.

Mr. DOMENICI. And then who is next? Do we have another Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes, if you like. Will you yield me 1 minute of that time--or let me ask consent that the Senator be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did the Senator ask for?

Mr. DOMENICI. We will do that. If we have no Senators to go on our side, they can go sequentially, the two of them? That is our unanimous consent request.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I stand here before you today to introduce the designation of the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. This legislation will amend the National Trails System Act and designate the Old Spanish Trail; which originates in Santa Fe, NM and continues to Los Angeles, CA as a National Historic Trail. The United Stats of America has a rich history of which, as citizens, we are very proud. Particularly in the west, citizens from all walks of life have deep rooted cultural and historic ties to land throughout the west. The Old Spanish Trail dates back to 1829. The Old Spanish Trail had a variety of uses, from trade caravans to military expeditions. For twenty plus years the Old Spanish Trail was used as a main route of travel between New Mexico and California. Today, more than one hundred and fifty years after the first caravan on the Old Spanish Trail, the historic character of the trail is tied to its routes in the natural environment and the existence of landscapes along the trail. The Old Spanish Trail remains relatively unchanged from the trail period. It has also been proven that numerous Indian pueblos were situated along the Old Spanish Trail serving as trading centers. The majority of these pueblos are occupied by descendants who contributed to the labor and goods that constituted commerce on the Old Spanish Trail. The National Trails System was established by the National Trails System Act of 1968 ``to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' Designating the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail would allow for just what the act has intended, preservation, access, enjoyment and appreciation of the historic resources of our Nation. By definition under the National Trails System Act of 1968, National Historic Trails are ``extended trails which follow as closely as possible and practicable the original route or routes of travel of national historic significance.'' The main route of Old Spanish Trail travels more than 1,160 miles through the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California as well as 33 different counties throughout these states. More than 1,190 miles of Old Spanish Trail are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management, more than 310 miles are managed by the USDA Forest Service with an additional approximate 120 miles controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The relative lack of development facilitates public access as well as minimizing potential conflicts with private land uses. The Old Spanish Trail has been significant in many respects to many different people. The rich history of this trail is something that should not be left out of our National Trails System. Designating Old Spanish Trail as a national Historic Trail will protect this historic route and its historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I stand here before you today to introduce the designation of the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. This legislation will amend the National Trails System Act and designate the Old Spanish Trail; which originates in Santa Fe, NM and continues to Los Angeles, CA as a National Historic Trail. The United Stats of America has a rich history of which, as citizens, we are very proud. Particularly in the west, citizens from all walks of life have deep rooted cultural and historic ties to land throughout the west. The Old Spanish Trail dates back to 1829. The Old Spanish Trail had a variety of uses, from trade caravans to military expeditions. For twenty plus years the Old Spanish Trail was used as a main route of travel between New Mexico and California. Today, more than one hundred and fifty years after the first caravan on the Old Spanish Trail, the historic character of the trail is tied to its routes in the natural environment and the existence of landscapes along the trail. The Old Spanish Trail remains relatively unchanged from the trail period. It has also been proven that numerous Indian pueblos were situated along the Old Spanish Trail serving as trading centers. The majority of these pueblos are occupied by descendants who contributed to the labor and goods that constituted commerce on the Old Spanish Trail. The National Trails System was established by the National Trails System Act of 1968 ``to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.'' Designating the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail would allow for just what the act has intended, preservation, access, enjoyment and appreciation of the historic resources of our Nation. By definition under the National Trails System Act of 1968, National Historic Trails are ``extended trails which follow as closely as possible and practicable the original route or routes of travel of national historic significance.'' The main route of Old Spanish Trail travels more than 1,160 miles through the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California as well as 33 different counties throughout these states. More than 1,190 miles of Old Spanish Trail are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management, more than 310 miles are managed by the USDA Forest Service with an additional approximate 120 miles controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The relative lack of development facilitates public access as well as minimizing potential conflicts with private land uses. The Old Spanish Trail has been significant in many respects to many different people. The rich history of this trail is something that should not be left out of our National Trails System. Designating Old Spanish Trail as a national Historic Trail will protect this historic route and its historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Institute of the North recently held a ceremony to honor Robert O. Anderson and his lifetime of achievements. I, too, would like to add my appreciation for his many contributions to our Nation. Robert O. has earned renown as a petroleum executive, an environmentalist, a diplomat, a rancher, and a community leader. He began his career in the oil industry shortly after he graduated from the University of Chicago in 1939. In 1941, he and his family moved to my home State of New Mexico after he acquired an interest in a small oil refinery in Artesia. Within six months, he had more than doubled the production of the refinery. Though his innovation and experimentation was greeted with skepticism by many within the industry, Robert O. persevered and soon moved on to larger refineries, eventually becoming Chairman and CEO of Arco, the Atlantic-Richfield Company, all the while bringing robust economic development and hundreds of jobs to New Mexico. At Arco, Robert O. was instrumental in bringing Alaska into the twentieth century. In fact, Alaska's history is closely intertwined with Arco and with Robert O. Anderson. Under his leadership, Arco discovered one of Alaska's greatest natural resources: the Prudhoe Bay oil field. As Arco developed the Prudhoe Bay, Robert O. surprised the environmental community by working with them to ensure that the pipeline was completed in an environmentally responsible manner. Throughout his career, Robert O. Anderson has brought economic prosperity to Alaska, while respecting and preserving its natural treasures. In fact, the United States owes Robert O. Anderson a special debt of gratitude in our current era of energy crises. The U.S. depends heavily on the Prudhoe Bay oil field, which provides 25 percent of our domestic oil supply. When Prudhoe Bay was first discovered, skeptics claimed that the U.S. could do without its oil supply. They also claimed that the local wildlife would be irreparably harmed. And now, three decades later, the Prudhoe Bay area provides us with over 1.4 million barrels of oil a day. And virtually every study has concluded that not one of the local species of wildlife has declined. Rather, every single species has thrived. Imagine the position the U.S. would be in if Robert O. had listened to these skeptics. Everyone agrees that we are too dependent on foreign sources of energy, but imagine how dependent we would be if it were not for Robert O. Anderson. In addition to oil, Robert O. Anderson's other business interests have included cattle ranching, mining and milling, and general manufacturing. He has served on the board of directors of the National Petroleum Council since 1951 and has received numerous honors and titles recognizing his extensive charitable and community work. He has also served on the Board of Regents of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and currently serves on the National Advisory Board of the University of New Mexico Anderson Schools of Management, two fine institutions in my home state. Robert O. Anderson also founded the International Institute for Environmental Development to further his lifelong passion of preserving and protecting the environment. Once again I thank Robert O. Anderson for his years of service to our State of New Mexico and to our Nation. He has a true American story. His hard work and determination have produced a proud legacy of accomplishments and public service.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, recently during the 45th Session of the New Mexico State Senate, Fabian Chavez, Jr., was honored for his many accomplishments. This recognition coincided with the 40th anniversary of the founding of the University of New Mexico's School of Medicine and the establishment of an Endowed Chair for Population Health Research at the school, in his honor. Fabian Chavez should be commended for his many years of service. He served for 10 years in the New Mexico legislature, including 2 years in the house of representatives and 8 years in the State senate, elected to the position of senate majority floor leader during his tenure. During these years in the New Mexico State legislature, he fought to reform the Justice of Peace System and Liquor Control Laws. In 1961, he began appropriations to start the University of New Mexico's School of Medicine. His many accomplishments are far too many to list individually, but are visible on a daily basis. Because of his dedication, his fellow colleagues continue to look to Fabian for advice, counsel, and guidance, usually receiving immediate response without any hesitation. He has continued his devotion by serving as the State Insurance Superintendent, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the State Department of Development Director and the State Tourism Director. He is happiest when he is pursuing a goal in the name of justice, in particular in his role on the board of directors of the Public Employees Retirement Association. Fabian Chavez is not only a great Public Servant, but a friend to the people of New Mexico. I commend Fabian for his hard work and have the privilege of joining with the New Mexico State Legislature in congratulating Fabian on this special occasion. I ask that the Congratulations Resolution passed by the New Mexico Legislature be printed in the Record. The resolution follows: Senate Resolution Whereas, Fabian Chavez, Jr., has devoted his adult life to Public Service, serving in the New Mexico Legislature for Ten Years, including Two Years in the House of Representatives and Eight Years in the New Mexico State Senate; and Whereas, ``Fabian,'' as he is simply known to everyone who has had the pleasure of meeting him, also served as the State Insurance Superintendent, the Assistant United States Secretary of Commerce, the State Department of Development Director and the State Tourism Director; and Whereas, Fabian is happiest when he is bucking the System to pursue a goal in the Name of Justice, a characteristic that he displays to this day in his Role on the Board of Directors of the Public Employees Retirement Association; and Whereas, Fabian distinguishes himself at virtually everything he does, as evidenced by everything from the Five Battle Stars he earned during his Career in the Army and his Election by his colleagues to the position of Senate Majority Floor Leader; and Whereas, Fabian's Legislative Accomplishments, which are too many to list, are highlighted by his reform of the Justice of the Peace System and Liquor Control Laws, his work on Anti-Discrimination Laws and an Appropriation in 1961 to begin the University of New Mexico School of Medicine; and Whereas, on this, the Fortieth Anniversary of the Founding of the School of Medicine, Fabian Chavez, Jr., is being Honored with an Endowed Chair for Population Health Research at the School; and Whereas, the Members of the Senate of the State of New Mexico, who are still privileged to receive Advice, Counsel and Guidance from Fabian, almost all of it Unsolicited, continue to consider Fabian as not just a Friend, but also as a Trusted Colleague in Public Service; and Whereas, the Senate takes Great Pride in being able to be Associated with Fabian Chavez, Jr.: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate of the State of New Mexico, That Fabian Chavez, Jr., be Thanked for all his work on behalf of the Residents of the State of New Mexico and that he be Congratulated for the Latest Recognition he has received.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to share some thoughts on the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. I believe that this act is important and can do positive things in communities across America. Laws related to brownfields were the result of a much broader Act, which we commonly refer to as Superfund. Superfund was intended to bring about the clean up of some of the most contaminated sites in our nation. As Superfund has been implemented in our society we have found that it is often too cumbersome to bring about clean up and restoration of many brownfield sites. When we talk about brownfields we are not talking about the most contaminated sites in our communities, but about sites that are less contaminated and could realistically be bought, cleaned up, and developed thus bringing economic and other benefits to American citizens. Therefore, I share the thoughts of many of my colleagues and support removing the barriers to brownfields redevelopment. When the average person wishes to invest in something such as an abandoned gas station, they are often discouraged from doing so for fear of the strict liabilities that could be imposed on them by Superfund. Attempting to relax the daunting liability provisions for those willing to buy brownfields sites for the purpose of cleaning and upgrading them is a huge step in the right direction. I believe that enactment of this brownfields legislation, will provide a significant foundation for rebuilding many of our communities. Many of these sites are located in downtown areas and often serve as the breeding grounds for crime, drug trafficking and contamination. I am hopeful that passing this legislation will help restore downtown communities making them once again attractive to business, industry and prospective residents. Many of us have watched these downtown areas slowly die. I know that in Albuquerque, NM, the largest city in the State, we have seen a huge shift away from the downtown area. Local businesses that once thrived were forced to close and slowly, what was once the metropolis of Albuquerque, began to seem like a ghost town. I support this legislation because of the potential it brings to restoring places like downtown Albuquerque. As I briefly touched on, some of the most important benefits of the bill are its liability and finality provisions. The bill specifies that prospective purchasers, innocent landowners, and contiguous property owners, who exercise due diligence in purchases, are not responsible for paying cleanup costs. The stringent liability scheme under Superfund hinders those who want to invest in these sites for fear of liability. These barriers are unnecessary and do not foster development and growth in our inner cities. Additionally, the bill precludes EPA from taking action on a site that a State has already placed in a cleanup program, unless there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment or public health, and some additional work must be completed. Finally, the bill authorizes $150 million per year to help State and local governments perform assessments and cleanup at brownfields sites. Further, $50 million per year is also authorized to establish and enhance brownfields programs, more than double the current level of funds available through the current EPA program. Pumping federal tax dollars back into localities and fostering partnerships with States and their local communities can help rid our communities of the negatives such as crime and contamination while rejuvenating downtown economies. Economics and Environmental health are not mutually exclusive. This bill would allow these types of areas to be cleaned up, thus providing both economic and environmental benefits. It is a win-win for everyone--cities and citizens alike. I am hopeful that New Mexico, as well as many other communities across the nation, will see great benefits as a result of this legislation. I hope that we are successful at reviving the ghost towns that currently exist in many downtown areas and that they will once again come alive with prosperity.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology and United Tribes Technical College depend on Perkins funding for their core operational funds, and the Department should not make radical changes in eligibility simply by issuing a new grant announcement. The 1992 regulations for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions Program state, at 34 CFR 440.5, that tribal colleges are not eligible for these funds. The regulations have not been changed. Would the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee comment on this?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Garfield Middle School in Albuquerque, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary today, April 26. Built to serve Albuquerque's growing North Valley, the school first opened for the 1950-51 school year. First built with the intention of serving as an elementary school, Garfield actually became the fourth public junior high school to open in my hometown. Mr. Walter McNutt was Garfield Middle School's first principal. It was under this distinguished man that I served as a public school teacher shortly after graduating from the University of New Mexico. I taught math and coached baseball at the school in the 1955-56 school year. The Garfield Middle School's long-held mission has been to foster a sense of community among its students, parents and school staff as a means of boosting pupil achievement. With a multi-cultural enrollment ranging over the years from 650- 1,200 students, Garfield has earned a number of award-winning and nationally-recognized programs. I am proud to also point out that Garfield is actively involved in a program that is close to my heart, Character Counts. The school is nationally recognized as having one of the finest Character Counts programs in the United States. At the school they teach the six pillars of good character: responsibility, respect, trustworthiness, fairness, citizenship, and caring. I applaud Garfield Middle School for its accomplishments and as it celebrates its 50th Anniversary, we wish them much continued success in the future.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about education. Since we are going to seriously consider education reform in this Chamber during the ensuing days, I thought it might be appropriate for me to talk about it before I, and many others, offer amendments. New Mexicans and Americans agree, from everything I can tell, that improving the educational opportunities available to our children should be our top priority. The issue is whether or not we can reform the school system such that our children will perform better as they are educated in our public school systems in ensuing years. There is ample evidence that it is absolutely imperative the public school systems do better, that more and more of our schools be held accountable, and that an accountability requirement be part of the reform measures the Senate will be considering in the next few days or weeks. For starters, going back to the days of our origin, I quote a very distinguished American who talked about investing resources. Benjamin Franklin said: An investment in knowledge always pays the highest interest. Obviously, that is a very simple way of talking about our priorities and where we put our resources and where we might expect the best benefits for society. This great American in our founding days said: You will always get the best interest when you invest in knowledge. Later in the discussions there will be ample opportunity for Senators to assess the performance of the school systems across America and what is happening to our children--not everywhere but some places; not to all children but to substantial numbers by way of our desire to give them the basic skills with which to perform as students, as growing Americans, and ultimately as adults in our society, which is requiring more and more that people be skilled of mind, their cognitive skills be developed to the highest extent possible. The President of the United States, in suggesting reform of the educational system, also suggested with that reform there should be a substantial increase in the level of funding by the Federal Government. The President suggested we spend $44.5 billion for the Department of Education. That is an 11.5-percent increase over last year, but it is also $1 billion in new funding for a new reading program for young children, tied into the reform measures that we will talk about as the bill proceeds. It increases special education funding to a Federal share of 17 percent. That is 17 of the 40 percent we have committed. It is the highest proportional share by the Federal Government in the history of the program. It doesn't do justice to our original commitment of 40, but for a 1-year add-on to the program, it is substantial. It provides $2.6 billion in the area of teacher quality funds. That is a 17-percent increase. It provides a $\1/2\ billion increase for title I grants to serve disadvantaged children. There is already bipartisan discussion between the committee members and the President. There will be a lot of discussion as to how to change the underlying laws we have had on the books for a long time, the bill that provides most of the funding for education and how that will be changed. The Senate will begin debate on a new act which is going to be called the Better Education For Students and Teachers Act. I will take a few moments to talk about my specific input which I will offer to the Senate. Americans and New Mexicans are concerned. Their highest priority is education. Second, most Americans and most New Mexicans are worried about what is happening to the character and the morals of our society, of our culture. That seems to be almost the second most important issue around. I will be offering on the floor what will be called the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. It is important to note that reform does not only apply to math, science, and reading. While the current debate is centered on reform, our bill simply encourages the creation of character education programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. The bill builds upon a highly successful demonstration program to increase character education contained in last year's ESEA bill. Since 1994, the Department of Education has granted seed money to some of our school systems to develop character education programs. Currently, there are 36 States that have either received some Federal funding or on their own have enacted laws encouraging or mandating character education. Thus, the time is now to ensure that there will be a permanent and dedicated funding source made available for character education programs. When we first look at character education, questions are asked. What is it? Will it work? Will teachers want to do it? I will cite an example of how it is being done in my State under a program called the Six Pillars of Good Character. I will read the words that equate to the six pillars and discuss it. The words are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. These were developed a few years ago when a large group of Americans, under the leadership of a foundation in the United States that brought them together to talk about good character, the Josephsen Institute for Ethics, essentially a foundation that promoted ethics, was specific in coming up with six pillars of character. In my State, we have the largest number of public schools at the grade school level, junior high level, of any State in the Union that has incorporated these six pillars into the daily education of our children. The teachers love it. It empowers them to do some things they have always wanted to do. There are lesson plans that help them get across these six pillars as part of the normal education of our children. It is a joy to go to a school and see what is occurring in the hallways of the school. They chose one of the pillars of character for each month. If you go to the school when they chose ``responsibility,'' you will see the hallways laden with posters that contain ideas and events about responsibility. At the end of the month, they get together and talk about that pillar. You will see the most enthusiastic group of teachers and young people discussing what happened during that month with respect to encouraging responsibility and understanding of it and actions based upon it. Without telling the Senate how that got started, it is a glimpse of what can happen across America if we continue to encourage this kind of character education and ask more and more of our States to get involved and encourage them but not order them to do this. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership. Since the departure of Senator Nunn, he has joined with me in promoting the encouraging startup funding for character education in the United States. In addition to that measure, Senator Kennedy will join me in a bill which will address itself to mental health needs in our schools. Essentially, it will say the mental health resources not in the school but which are in the community and are public should be used in collaboration with the schools for the counselors and for the young people. I think that bill will find general acceptance in the Senate and is something we ought to encourage. The third amendment I will introduce with a number of cosponsors has to do with the recruitment and retention of teachers. Rather than detailing this, I will do so when I introduce the amendment. It is obvious we need teacher recruitment and teacher development. We will promote this idea by advocating teacher recruitment and development retention centers within our States for the exchange of names to provide a program in the country on a purely voluntary grant basis where there would be internships by budding teachers with senior teachers known for their quality and competency, thus permitting a number of young Americans to have a half year or year service as an intern with an educator before they are placed in the classroom. I think it is going to be a worthwhile debate. There are many participating from the committee in the Senate. I do not happen to be on that committee, but I will participate to the maximum extent so these three amendments and ideas will be incorporated in amendments that will be offered on the floor. I know Senator Smith is waiting and I have exceeded my time, so I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, not desiring to object, I just want to make sure that I follow that time and that there is time for me. I was scheduled at 10:15 was my understanding.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as a designee, I ask that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California so long as 10 minutes is added to our side.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know why we need 4 hours. If any Senator wants to speak to the issue, the appointment of conferees and sending the completed package which we voted on, 65 Senators voted aye on, to the House and seeking a conference agreement with them, that is why we are here. I understand that under the previous order, we are going to take up H. Con. Res. 83 and that either this Senator or the majority leader will be recognized to make a motion that we insist on an amendment--we have just done that--request a conference, which we have done, on the disagreeing votes and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. We have done that. We now have 4 hours, which have been agreed to, to debate this issue. I don't intend to even come close to spending 2 hours on this matter. To anyone on my side of the aisle, if they want to speak, I will be here for a while, as long as my ranking member wants me to be here by virtue of his speaking. If any Republican wants time, I will give it to them. If we run out of time, I will give some of his people some of my time. Any time I may have, I will reserve at this time. Essentially, I don't need very much of it. Now we are in the process of proceeding to conference on two budget resolutions. We begin that process with the appointment of conferees in the Senate. The House has not done that yet. They will appoint their conferees tomorrow. It is my hope that the conference can meet as soon as the House has appointed its conferees, maybe as early as Wednesday. Over the recess the two staffs of the Budget Committee on the majority side have been meeting to organize the materials for conference, to lay out any technical differences that can be resolved quickly by the conferees, and to highlight the major differences between the two resolutions. I am sure that information will be shared, and wherever the minority thinks there should be matters changed, added to, or in any way described differently, obviously, we will take that into consideration. I don't think there are very many big secrets about the differences in the two resolutions. The House budget resolution sticks fairly closely to President Bush's budget submission that was submitted in some detail over the recess period. Everyone knows that over the recess, April 15 came and went, with the American public paying their taxes, with the few exceptions being those who get extensions. Taxes are at an all-time high in terms of the totality of collections by the U.S. Government. The House budget resolution assumes a tax cut over the next 11 years of over $1.6 trillion. The Senate-passed budget resolution assumes a tax cut of nearly $1.3 trillion over the next 11 years, including this year's $85 billion surplus rebate, or, in some way, a refunding of 85.2, which should be implemented quickly to provide both a stimulus to the economy as well as longer term marginal tax rate reductions and whatever else can be accomplished by the Finance Committee within the agreed-upon tax number. It is fair to say that the Senate-passed budget resolution provided for more spending than the House-passed resolution, both in the annually appropriated and in the accounts sometimes referred to as mandatory spending, or sometimes referred to as entitlement spending. In the area of appropriated accounts, the Senate-passed budget resolution provided nearly $688 billion in budget authority, or an 8.3- percent increase over current year funding. The House-passed budget resolution was at the President's request of about $661 billion. When I use these two numbers, 688 and 661, the 661 is the President's 4-percent increase. That increase is in the totality of Defense appropriations and nondefense appropriations. And so is the $688 billion, in which the Senate approved the 8.3 percent. That includes Defense and nondefense. While the increase or changes in the annually appropriated accounts have received the bulk of the attention in this debate so far, I need to highlight the fact that the Senate-passed budget resolution significantly increased spending for programs we refer to as mandatory spending, compared to the resolution which I introduced and upon which we commenced our debate, and that is before it was amended. We have added nearly $400 billion in so-called mandatory spending, almost all of this in the area of some kind of educational funding, principally funding for special education. Again, almost every dollar we added back for mandatory spending we took away from the President's proposed tax cuts. It should be obvious that the major challenge before the conference will be to find a compromise in both the areas of tax cuts and spending. I don't think it requires a great deal of budget or political skill to figure out that an obvious compromise for the House is to reduce its tax cuts and increase its spending assumptions, and the Senate to increase its tax cuts and reduce its spending assumptions. Finding that balance will indeed be a challenge, but I am confident that within a week or so we will reach an agreement that meets the challenges of drafting a budget blueprint that will allow us to get on with putting together and implementing legislation to provide a tax cut. There will be plenty of time to argue and debate what kind of tax cut and what will be affected and how soon. Obviously, we need to consider the reduction of debt held by the public and fund national priorities such as health care, Medicare prescription drugs, energy security needs, defense, and environmental programs. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, as I said before, I will yield back the remainder of my time. I yield the floor at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement of April 6, I now move that with respect to H. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.