Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator want to speak? I want to say a few words to my friend. Madam President, I believe we can cite some cases which indicate that the concern of the Senator of Tennessee about one candidate having different limitations under public financing, that they have been done differently and they have not been held unconstitutional. I ask the Senator to think one more time with me. If you look at the effect on individual campaigns for the Senate, and if the Senator from Tennessee is disconcerted about the existing laws, then I ask him whether he would not be a bit disconcerted about the growing number of candidates who spend huge amounts of their own money and the opposition is limited to the meager rationing--that is 26 years old--of $1,000 per person per election and $5,000 for a political action committee. If that is not something that concerns us in terms of large amounts of money being put into the system and, more specifically, that has a very good chance of electing a Senator--the other things we are not quite sure of--we are worried about some of the abuses of which Senator McCain is speaking having an impact on the public trust and those kinds of generic things. I am getting concerned that this Senate, which I dearly love--a while ago, I wondered out loud whether it was worth $20 million which somebody wants to pay for a seat, but I did that jokingly. It seems to me one could conclude that there will be 25 Senators in this place who will have spent their own money to be elected in the next decade, in 15 years, and you would have rendered the opposition to those candidates. They do not have a chance. Maybe I do not have the big-State figures, but they would not have a chance in the State of Tennessee or my State. If somebody comes up with $15 million, you cannot raise the money. I hope the Senator will look at it. This is at least one way to say we do not like that.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have time on my own amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Utah yield me time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I know my friend, Senator Wellstone, was on the floor, and I didn't get to hear his entire statement. But if you were informed by either his speech or something else you read that I take the limits off, I do not. As a matter of fact, based on a schedule of how much the wealthy candidate is going to spend, we raise the caps for the nonwealthy candidates to 2 times, 3 times, and the highest they get is 5 times, or the most you could raise is $5,000 in individual contributions, and 5 times 5, or $25,000, in PACs. Frankly, I don't think there is an equal protection problem either because the Senator from New Mexico is not saying in any respect that the wealthy candidate is limited in terms of how much they can spend. They exercise their privilege and their right, which the courts have said they have. I tried to see if there was a way to limit something because we have seen as much as $40 million or more spent in a campaign. Since everybody is worried about excessive money in campaigns, I feel very sorry for a candidate who has to raise from his or her friends $1,000, and we raise it to 2 and then 5--$5,000--while a candidate exercising his rights can spend 5, 10, 20, and still have exactly the same rights in terms of the caps, unless we raise them. If we don't raise them for the nonwealthy candidate, they are going to be stuck at $1,000 and $2,000 per election, while the wealthy candidate can contribute as much as he wants. Where would there be an equal protection clause?

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no doubt in my mind that we ought to try to fix that. I, as one Senator, saw this issue that I am addressing arising in 1987. So I introduced a bill that we called the wealthy candidate bill. Frankly, we did not have a debate that looked like it was going to bring reform. So I just kept introducing it every 2 years. One time, Senator Dole offered something very much similar. But the underlying bill never did proceed beyond the debate stage. I want everybody to understand. I want to repeat, just in very simple terms, that I do not know whether a very wealthy candidate will be a great Senator, a good Senator, or not so good Senator. I do not know that. I am not trying to say because you have $10 million or $40 million to spend on your campaign, you should not run and use your own money--not at all. Nor am I suggesting that if you spend a huge amount--$40 million--and win that you were the better or the lesser candidate. I am merely saying, we established rules limiting what the opponent can spend. These are statutory rules that are 26 years old, coming out of Watergate, that say what the opponent to that wealthy candidate can spend. It is in that regard that I speak. If, in fact, the wealthy candidate wants to disclose, as prescribed in this statute, that he is going to spend this money--and, of course, there are statute law penalties if they do not comply with the law--if they do that, then it would seem to me you ought to amend the 26-year-old limitations, which are under attack here as being too low anyway. There are a number of amendments in the bill saying that number is too low. Now, believe it or not, as of right now, those low numbers apply even to an opponent of somebody who will declare under this statute that they are going to spend $1 million of their own money as prescribed in this law. So with that, I do not know if we have any formal opposition on the floor. If we do, I certainly would be willing to exchange views with them. But from my standpoint, I think we ought to adopt this amendment before the day is out and have done one piece of laudable work on the first day. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. No question about it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, it seems to me we have seen some evidence of that, for there was a race out there--I am not using names of who did this but there was a very huge amount of money spent by a candidate. The candidate didn't happen to win. But essentially the opposition had a terrible time raising money to compete. It just turned out that there was something else happening in that election. Given the money that people in California have who made these large fortunes, if one of them chooses to go in and put up really a big portion of their own money, an opponent at $1,000 per individual and per election and $5,000 in PAC money--essentially the major ways of raising money--I don't see how they can compete.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, for those interested in campaign reform, obviously this is a rare opportunity for the United States to see a full debate on this issue. If you will forgive me, those who are involved in the underlying debate, I choose to depart from the subject matter that has been debated for the last 2 hours and concentrate on just one new phenomenon that is occurring in elections in the United States that I think has to be righted, and that has to do with the growing number of men and women who run for the Senate and pay for their own campaigns with large amounts of money. We have been talking about large amounts of money coming from all different sources. Some think that is changing the election campaigns for the better; some think it is changing them for the worse. But I think one thing we ought to seriously worry about and wonder about is a man or woman who chooses to run for the Senate and says: I want to use my constitutional rights to spend $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $50 million of my own money--his or her own money--to get elected. That is OK, says the Supreme Court. Far be it for the Senator from New Mexico to think I know how to change that. I do not. I am not sure, if I knew how, that I would want to. But what I do know is, whoever chooses to do that has a huge, unfair opportunity over their opponent. Why do I say that? Because, you understand, and everybody listening should understand, that when you run for the Senate, you cannot go collect $10,000 and $20,000, and $40,000 contributions. Let's start off looking at a candidate who is going to spend $10 million or $20 million or $30 million of his or her own money, and then look at their opponent. Under current election laws, that opponent can raise money from individuals--rich, or moderately rich, or ordinary citizens who are not very rich--but they are limited to $1,000 per election. The occupant of the chair just went through an election. She knows what I am talking about--$1,000 per contributor in the primary and the general election. Think of that for a moment. That used to be the primary way to raise money for a Senate candidate to run his or her own campaign. Just think of what a Senator has to do, to raise $5 million that way. Also, there is no way you can do it with $1,000 or $2,000 contributions. You would have to have a breakfast, a lunch, and a dinner every day with $1,000 contributors, with 10, or 15, or 20 at each event, and do it for about 1 year to be able to raise $5 million. Is it fair, even though it is constitutionally authorized, for a wealthy American to put up whatever amount they want? We have seen it in large scale go from over $45 million down to $5 million, or $6 million, or $7 million, and we have seen a very large number of successes from those who do that. I regret to say I am not sure I would do that for a Senate seat if I had a lot of resources. I have been here a long time. I am not sure it is worth $20 million, in any event. Maybe when I first started, I would have been very excited about it. I still love it, but I just wonder if I would put up $20 million, or $30 million, or $40 million to beat my opponent who couldn't come close to raising the money. Let's get down to what I am trying to do. What I am trying to do is leave that alone. I can't change that. What I can say is that somebody who intends to do that has to publicly disclose it at various intervals in the campaign. Then we start to raise the caps for the nonmillionaire candidate so that they have more latitude to raise money to compete with the person who is going to contribute millions of their own money. Essentially, in that context, it is an equalizer amendment; it is a fair play amendment; it is a ``let's be considerate of a candidate who isn't rich'' amendment--whatever you choose to call it. I want to describe what I choose to do in this amendment. First of all, the person who intends to spend large amounts of their own money--I want to say it again: Senator Domenici from New Mexico is not trying to stop that. I am fully aware that I couldn't even if I wanted to. I do not know if I would if I could. But the U.S. Supreme Court said that is a freedom of speech issue with the person who can either borrow large amounts of money or who wants to spend large amounts of money. What I say is they must declare the intent to spend more than a half million dollars within 15 days of being required to file a declaration of candidacy. Over $500,000--let's do that one first. Fifteen days, if you are going to spend $500,000--over $500,000--opponents, individuals and PACs are increased threefold. If it is $500,000 of your own money, then that $1,000 contribution turns to $3,000 for the opponent. The PACs go from 5 to 15. If you go beyond the $500,000, and you are going to spend $750,000, then everything is increased by five times. Those are the caps that currently operate. Instead of $1,000, it will be $5,000 per election, and the same on the PACs. If you are going to do $1 million, then direct party contribution limits or party coordinated expenditures limits are eliminated, as well as you eliminate the cap on individual contributions, and the cap stays at five times. It stays at five times at the highest category, but then the party contributions and party coordinated expenditures which have caps on them are eliminated. It has one other feature. I don't really mean it for anybody in the past; I just want it to apply in the future. But you see, there is another practice that has come into play that I don't think is fair. That is, you use your own money or you lend yourself money. Then, after you are elected, you go have a lot of fundraisers as an elected Senator, and you pay yourself back. Frankly, I don't think you ought to do that. If you are going to spend $5 million and go out there and robustly tell everybody you are spending $5 million of your own money, or $10 million of your own money--I guess we have had somebody spend $40 million of their own money--you shouldn't get elected and go out and have fundraisers to collect the money back once you have won the seat, which you essentially won by putting in such a huge amount of your own money. This limits candidates who incur personal loans in connection with their campaign in excess of $250,000. They can do $250,000 and then reimburse themselves with fundraisers. But anything more than that, they cannot repay it by going out and having fundraisers once they are elected with their own money. I don't think the details are very important to this amount. I think if Senators see what I see, they are going to want to adopt this amendment. This whole debate is about what people perceive as too much money being put into campaigns at one level or another. I am not sure I know what that is in terms of party participation. I am listening to the debate. I am complimenting Senator McCain and others who are working on the bill and those who are coming up with other amendments. But I think the amendment I have also addresses a growing issue that should be of great concern, whether it is a Republican, a Democrat, or a third-party candidate. If you are going to run for the Senate, and if you are going to put huge amount of your own money into the campaign, it is patently unfair that your opponent would be limited to fundraising levels that are 26 years old without a change, which is $1,000 per primary and $1,000 per general from your friends who want to help you. Just think for a moment. If you are so fortunate to have somebody run against you with $20 million of their own money, just think of what is ahead of you--to go out and raise the money you need to run a fair campaign against $20 million and raise it $1,000 at a time per election and a $5,000 limitation on PACs. It is patently wrong and unfair. If it is constitutional to fix it--and I believe this may be constitutional because, as a matter of fact, we are denying no rights to the wealthy if they want to put in their money. But to the person who runs against them, we say we want to give you a chance to stay in the playing field by raising limits on how you can raise money and from whom. I note my friend from Kentucky wanting to be recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Domenici amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Why don't colleagues just decide how much time she needs. I am willing for her to do that now. In fact, I have somebody out there who needs me for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe it is in order now for me to send an amendment to the desk, and I do so on behalf of myself and Senator Ensign.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and excitement to introduce the ``Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001.'' I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain. Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if thirty years ago our nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures. I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain. Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness. The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill is even more important because the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 will sunset on September 30 of this year. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs increase by more than one percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies throughout our entire country. With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are mental disorders. In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness. One in every five people, more than 40 million adults, in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness. Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer from one or more mental disorders. Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field, especially on the insurance side, have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders, that is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs, have an 80 percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65 percent success rate. Lets compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate. Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees. The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits. Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with those already enjoyed by Federal employees and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I so request.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to use half of it, if the Senator would give it to me, and I would ask the permission of the Senate to use the time for something else.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bankruptcy reform bill. We have been working on this reform for several years now. Indeed, we passed this bill last year, only to have it pocket vetoed by President Clinton. It is time we get it passed and signed by the President. Although there has been a slight decline in bankruptcies recently, the 1990s saw a steady increase, despite a robust economy. There are now more than a million bankruptcies a year. Many people are concerned that bankruptcy is being used as a financial planning tool and the public has become frustrated with many stories of bankruptcy abuse. This bill goes a long way to curbing the abuse without undercutting the truly needy debtor's right to a fresh start. This legislation accounts for the honest but unfortunate debtor who faces mounting bills as a result of medical expenses, divorce, and other reasonable causes. However, it prevents a debtor from pursuing a lavish lifestyle and then using bankruptcy to avoid obligations. Debtors must take responsibility for their spending. After all, the money creditors lose in bankruptcy is passed on to consumers in higher prices for consumer goods, services, and credit. This often has the greatest adverse affect on the neediest in our society. This bill strikes a fair balance between the interests of debtors and creditors. Those who truly need bankruptcy relief will receive a ``fresh start'' under Chapter 7. Those debtors who can afford to repay some of their debt will be required to do so under a Chapter 13 repayment plan. It is just common sense that a debtor who can afford to repay some of their debt should do so. Here's how the crux of the bill works. The bankruptcy court looks at 100 percent of the debtor's living expenses, priority expenses, and secured debt. If after their review, the debtor can still pay $10,000 or 25 percent of his or her debt, they are required to do so under a Chapter 13 repayment plan. This makes sense. The legislation also provides a $125,000 homestead exemption cap so that the debtor cannot declare bankruptcy but still retain his million dollar home. Again, this makes sense. This is reasonable reform that benefits debtors, consumers, and creditors alike and I will again vote for its passage.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a simple bill that stands for the proposition that when the Federal Government burns your house down it is not a taxable event. I can't believe any member of this chamber would argue that the Federal Government is so hard up for revenue that it would try to tax the very payment that it makes to someone whose home, business, and community it burned down. Let me summarize the events: The Park Service decided to start a fire--a so-called ``controlled burn.'' The Park Service didn't follow its own guidelines regarding when it is safe to conduct a controlled burn. They lit a fire when the rules were clear that they shouldn't. The fire raged out of control and burned 48,000 acres. It burned down hundreds of homes, and businesses. No dispute that this fire should never have been set. Congress passed a bill to compensate the victims for their losses. When Congress passed the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act we were assured that the FEMA payments to the victims of the Cerro Grande Fire would not be taxed under current law. Well, apparently there are some in the IRS who now have a different view. While it only took Congress 50 days from the day the fire was lit to the day legislation creating the claims process was signed into law, it has taken the IRS at least seven months to answer pretty basic questions, and the best they can offer is that people have extra time to file their income taxes. These victims should be paid. They should rebuild their lives and the IRS shouldn't be trying to tax the payments that are intended to put them back to the same place they were on the day before the Park Service lit the fire. I hope my colleagues will support me in expeditiously passing this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and excitement to introduce the ``Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001.'' I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as we must treat illnesses to our other organs, we must also treat illnesses of the brain. Building upon that, I would ask the following question: what if thirty years ago our nation had decided to exclude heart disease from health insurance coverage? Think about some of the wonderful things we would not be doing today like angioplasty, bypasses, and valve replacements and the millions of people helped because insurance covers these procedures. I would submit these medical advances have occurred because insurance dollars have followed the patient through the health care system. The presence of insurance dollars has provided an enticing incentive to treat those individuals suffering from heart disease. But sadly, those suffering from a mental illness do not enjoy those same benefits of treatment and medical advances because all too often insurance discriminates against illnesses of the brain. Individuals suffering from a mental illness face this discrimination even though medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I simply do not understand, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? There simply should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits, merely because an individual suffers from a mental illness. The introduction of our Bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step towards mental health parity. The timing of our Bill is even more important because the landmark Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 will sunset on September 30 of this year. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the Act is also not working. While there may adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs increase by more than one percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than one percent? Less than ten companies throughout our entire country. With that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of five are mental disorders. In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness. One in every five people, more than 40 million adults, in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness. Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer from one or more mental disorders. Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field, especially on the insurance side, have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty than you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders, that is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs, have an 80 percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65 percent success rate. Lets compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate. Atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. The Bill seeks a very simple goal: provide the same mental health benefits already enjoyed by Federal employees. The Bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, and expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 to prohibit a group health plan from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the coverage of mental health benefits unless comparable limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits. Our Bill provides full parity for all categories of mental health conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, DSM IV, with coverage being contingent on the mental health condition being included in an authorized treatment plan, the treatment plan is in accordance with standard protocols, and the treatment plan meets medical necessity determination criteria. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the Bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, rather the Bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the Bill provides mental heath benefits on par with those already enjoyed by Federal employees and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to express my continued dismay with the lack of funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. Hundreds of former uranium miners, including many New Mexicans, have recently been mailed IOUs from the Department of Justice. These individuals have had their claims approved, but have been told that there is no money in the Fund to compensate them. These are former miners who are stricken with radiation-related diseases, and unfortunately, many will die soon. We often pledge that we will never forget our Nation's veterans, who have sacrificed so much in order to secure our freedoms. But, we have forgotten the uranium miners, who also sacrificed for our nation's security while building up our nuclear arsenal. These miners endured long, dark, and dust-filled days underground. Often, the only fresh air that they breathed was what leaked out of the air compressors used to operate their jack-hammers. These miners were not even given protective masks or gloves, and they were never warned about the lethal medical risks until decades later. These miners are afflicted with cancer and various respiratory diseases, and very few have sufficient money to pay their staggering medical bills. Most of these miners were never given the opportunity to build up a pension because they were continuously moved from one company to another. And now, while our veterans rightfully enjoy a great many benefits, these miners are left with only a depleted compensation fund and a handful of IOUs. Unfortunately, an IOU does not pay their medical bills. I recently introduced legislation to provide $84 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to pay for those claims that have already been approved, as well as the projected number of claims for FY2001. Because of the urgency of these claims, I will make this promise to our miners: I will introduce this legislation as an amendment to the first appropriate legislative vehicle to ensure our miners are compensated as quickly as possible. We must replenish the trust fund immediately. Our miners have urgent health care needs and medical bills that will continue to pile up. Many miners have died without receiving any of the compensation that they were promised. Many will die without compensation, if we do not take action now. We must not break our promise to the miners who sacrificed and suffered to protect our Nation's security. I promise today to make every effort to ensure that our miners are compensated for their sacrifice. We must make sure that they don't die with only an IOU in their hands. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Albuquerque Tribune be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to waive that pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the law and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Medicare trust fund should be used for Medicare and Medicare reform. I don't think we should use it to fund, in any way, a requirement that we pay huge premiums--some estimate as high as 21 percent--to attract foreign investors to retire our debt. I yield whatever time I have to Senator Frist.

Mr. DOMENICI. Has the point of order been ruled on?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes; he has. The point of order is that the Conrad amendment violates the Budget Act.

Mr. DOMENICI. I make a point of order on the Conrad amendment. On the next amendment, does the Senator from North Dakota want to raise a point of order?

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