Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Mr. Joe Allbaugh is fully qualified to serve as the next FEMA Director, and I will vote to confirm his nomination. Most recently, Mr. Allbaugh served as the national campaign manager for President Bush. Prior to that Mr. Allbaugh was then-Governor Bush's chief of staff. In that capacity, he was responsible for management of crises and emergency response. On many occasions, he worked closely with FEMA and the related state agencies. Clearly, Mr. Allbaugh has the management experience needed to run this important federal agency. The position of FEMA Director is very important to me and the people of New Mexico. Nine months ago the Los Alamos community was devastated by fires accidentally started by the U.S. Park Service. More than 400 homes were destroyed and many businesses were affected. Last summer, we worked hard to pass legislation to compensate the victims. FEMA was charged with the task of processing the victims' claims, and in part they have tackled this undertaking admirably. However, the number of complaints has been mounting as the February 26 deadline for some final settlements fast approaches. Frankly, I am greatly concerned about the delays and mishandling of some of the claims--a concern shared by Mr. Allbaugh. Mr. Allbaugh assured me that this issue would be addressed expeditiously. I am confident that he will make it a top priority to resolve these complaints and carry out FEMA's duties under the legislation. I look forward to working with him, and I believe he will be a superb FEMA Director.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001. I want to begin with a quotation I recently came across that captures the essence of teaching: The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. the superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires. The point is simple, for our children to succeed we must ensure they are taught by well-educated, competent, and qualified teachers. I say this because it is a simple fact that in the future the individuals who will succeed will be those who can read, write, and do math. I firmly believe that a good education will help ensure a ticket to the economic security of the middle class because almost no one doubts the link between education and an individual's prospects. However, one of the fundamental keys to providing our children with the tools to succeed is the presence of qualified teachers. Nothing can have a more positive impact on a child's learning than a knowledgeable and skillful teacher. Thus, we must ensure there are not only enough teachers, but enough teachers that possess the tools required to make that positive impact on our children. Teachers must not only be prepared when they are hired, but they must remain armed with the latest technology and teaching tools for the duration of their careers. Just think of the constant training and testing doctors, police officers, and lawyers must endure throughout their careers. Before I touch upon the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 in greater detail I would like to make a few brief comments about K-12 education in New Mexico. New Mexico is a very large and rural state with almost 20,000 teachers and nearly 330,000 public school students. New Mexico's 89 school districts come in all shapes and sizes, for instance, Albuquerque has over 85,000 students and Corona has only 92 students. However, each of these districts, large and small must all have qualified teachers. The Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 seeks to create several optional programs for states to facilitate teacher recruitment development, and retention through grants awarded by the Secretary of Education. The first option would be the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers. These centers would serve as job banks/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. The second option would encourage states to implement teacher internships where newly hired teachers would participate in a teacher internship in addition to any state or district student teaching requirement. The internship would last one year and during that time the teacher would be assigned a mentor/senior teacher for guidance and support. Finally, states would have the option of creating mobile professional development teams. These teams would alleviate the need for teachers and administrators that often have to travel great distances to attend professional development programs by bringing these activities directly to the local district or a centrally located regional site through mobile professional development teams. I believe the primary beneficiaries of mobile professional development teams would be rural areas and the programs offered would focus on any state or local requirements for licensure of teachers and administrators, including certification and recertification. Under the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 each program would be authorized at $50 million for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. In conclusion, I want to again say how pleased I am to introduce the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001. I want to begin with a quotation I recently came across that captures the essence of teaching: The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. the superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires. The point is simple, for our children to succeed we must ensure they are taught by well-educated, competent, and qualified teachers. I say this because it is a simple fact that in the future the individuals who will succeed will be those who can read, write, and do math. I firmly believe that a good education will help ensure a ticket to the economic security of the middle class because almost no one doubts the link between education and an individual's prospects. However, one of the fundamental keys to providing our children with the tools to succeed is the presence of qualified teachers. Nothing can have a more positive impact on a child's learning than a knowledgeable and skillful teacher. Thus, we must ensure there are not only enough teachers, but enough teachers that possess the tools required to make that positive impact on our children. Teachers must not only be prepared when they are hired, but they must remain armed with the latest technology and teaching tools for the duration of their careers. Just think of the constant training and testing doctors, police officers, and lawyers must endure throughout their careers. Before I touch upon the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 in greater detail I would like to make a few brief comments about K-12 education in New Mexico. New Mexico is a very large and rural state with almost 20,000 teachers and nearly 330,000 public school students. New Mexico's 89 school districts come in all shapes and sizes, for instance, Albuquerque has over 85,000 students and Corona has only 92 students. However, each of these districts, large and small must all have qualified teachers. The Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 seeks to create several optional programs for states to facilitate teacher recruitment development, and retention through grants awarded by the Secretary of Education. The first option would be the creation of Teacher Recruitment Centers. These centers would serve as job banks/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. The second option would encourage states to implement teacher internships where newly hired teachers would participate in a teacher internship in addition to any state or district student teaching requirement. The internship would last one year and during that time the teacher would be assigned a mentor/senior teacher for guidance and support. Finally, states would have the option of creating mobile professional development teams. These teams would alleviate the need for teachers and administrators that often have to travel great distances to attend professional development programs by bringing these activities directly to the local district or a centrally located regional site through mobile professional development teams. I believe the primary beneficiaries of mobile professional development teams would be rural areas and the programs offered would focus on any state or local requirements for licensure of teachers and administrators, including certification and recertification. Under the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 each program would be authorized at $50 million for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. In conclusion, I want to again say how pleased I am to introduce the Teacher Recruitment, Development, and Retention Act of 2001 and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am grateful that the distinguished minority whip would join. We will be working together on this bill. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is an issue on which I have been working for 7 years; that is, character education in our schools, both public and private. The bill I sent to the desk has seven cosponsors from both parties. I ask other Senators who are interested in helping at the grassroots level in public schools and private schools, who want to bring Character Counts to their character education in their schools, that they might consider this bill. I would like to speak a little bit about character in our Nation and in our schools. I rise today with my friend, Senator Dodd, who is my principal cosponsor, although we now have Senators Frist, Kennedy, Harkin, Cleland, and Cochran. This bill is called the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. It is not a very big program, and it does not interfere very much at all with the schools, but it does provide for money to be granted to public school systems, partnerships between State agencies and others, bringing character, or character kind of programs, into the schools. Last month, I listened with great pleasure to President Bush's inaugural address. He basically ticked off the tenets of good character that underscore American life. The President's speech was clearly a message about character and the importance of character in American daily lives. In his speech, the President touched on many elements of good character. I found it especially telling when the President emphasized the necessity of teaching every child these principles and the duty of every citizen to uphold these very same principles. I am going to quote a number of people. Let me quote Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great Presidents. He said: Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of our Nation. What I have been principally involved in, in our State of New Mexico, is called Character Counts. Six pillars of character are promoted in the schools. Almost all of them use the same six pillars: Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. I would submit that character truly does transcend time as well as religious, cultural, political, and socio-economic barriers. I believe President Bush's renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. I say that because it was not too long ago, during the last Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, re-authorization, that Senators Nunn, Dodd and I included a provision in the bill to fund pilot projects to increase character education. Since then, 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. In New Mexico, over 230,000 kids and nearly 90 percent of our schools participate in some form of character education. Most of New Mexico utilizes a wonderful character curriculum called ``Character Counts,'' which was established by Michael Josephson, a renowned ethicist from the Josephson Institute in California. Character Counts emphasizes six pillars of good character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. The point is that teachers like this approach. These six pillars are not based on any particular religion or philosophy. They merely represent the kind of values that everybody can agree are important for our children. I first learned of Character Counts after reading about it in a nationally syndicated newspaper column. I subsequently, found out that one school in my State had decided to try the program, and that it seemed to be working. Character Counts started in New Mexico in 1993 at the Bel Air Elementary School in Albuquerque. Bel Air had disciplinary problems, and teachers and the principal were looking for ways to address those problems. One of Bel Air's counselors, Mary Jane Aguilar, along with Don Whatley, a teacher, suggested that the school try a new approach, called Character Counts. They took the six pillars, with training from the Josephson Institute, and began integrating them into the daily lives of their students. Within 6 months of integrating Character Counts into the daily curriculum at Bel Air, the teachers noticed that disciplinary episodes were fewer and that the students began to treat each other better. After hearing of the success at Bel Air, I invited the mayor of Albuquerque in 1994 to join me in forming the Character Counts Leadership Council, to bring together community leaders, schools, teachers, parents, and students for the purpose of expanding Character Counts in Albuquerque and throughout the State. And after our initial efforts, I worked to establish Character Counts partnerships in other parts of the State, and the program spread quickly throughout New Mexico. Since then, I have helped bring Character Counts to over 70 schools and communities in New Mexico. Places like Farmington, Santa Fe, Roswell, Portales, Carlsbad, Silver City, Hobbs and Las Cruces. And in even smaller communities like Espanola, Mountainair, Dexter, Hagerman, Lake Arthur, Artesia, Capitan, Carrizozo, Lovington, Eunice, Jal, Tatum, Alamogordo, Socorro, Deming, and Gallup. As I travel around New Mexico, in virtually every town I have noticed school billboards with things like: ``The word for the month of May is `citizenship.' Character Counts!'' It is everywhere in the schools in New Mexico and I am proud to be a part of the program. Additionally, many of our communities now have adopted Character Counts in afterschool programs like the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, and 4-H. So when kids leave the classroom for after-school activities, they are still being taught how to make decisions based on the six pillars. I think what we are starting to see in New Mexico is the beginning of the Character Counts Generation--young people entering high school, who are bringing with them the lessons they have learned through Character Counts. Mr. President, I could go on for quite some time talking about Character Counts in New Mexico. The bottom line is that I believe it is working in New Mexico and other parts of the country. Consequently, I think we need to encourage more character education by providing a little more seed money for these worthwhile programs. So today, Senator Dodd and I are here to introduce a bill to accomplish just that. The Strong Character for Strong Schools Act seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. Grant recipients would use the funding to design and implement character education programs incorporating the following elements: caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice and fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and any other elements developed by the program. ``Eligible entities'' would include partnerships of, one, a State Educational Agency, SEA, and one or more school districts, two, an SEA, one or more school districts, and one or more nonprofit organizations, three, one or more school districts, or, four, a school district and a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit organizations could be institutions of higher education. The program would be authorized at $50 million for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. I also want to emphasize that our bill does not dictate to States which character education program to implement. Rather, the bill merely provides states general guidelines and allows them to adopt whatever principles or pillars they choose after consultation with their communities. Hopefully, our renewed effort will bring together even more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every child's life. And with the successful passage of the legislation we are introducing today, our new Secretary of Education, Rodney Paige, will be in a position to help make these programs a reality. Thank you and I hope that my colleagues will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am grateful that the distinguished minority whip would join. We will be working together on this bill. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is an issue on which I have been working for 7 years; that is, character education in our schools, both public and private. The bill I sent to the desk has seven cosponsors from both parties. I ask other Senators who are interested in helping at the grassroots level in public schools and private schools, who want to bring Character Counts to their character education in their schools, that they might consider this bill. I would like to speak a little bit about character in our Nation and in our schools. I rise today with my friend, Senator Dodd, who is my principal cosponsor, although we now have Senators Frist, Kennedy, Harkin, Cleland, and Cochran. This bill is called the Strong Character for Strong Schools Act. It is not a very big program, and it does not interfere very much at all with the schools, but it does provide for money to be granted to public school systems, partnerships between State agencies and others, bringing character, or character kind of programs, into the schools. Last month, I listened with great pleasure to President Bush's inaugural address. He basically ticked off the tenets of good character that underscore American life. The President's speech was clearly a message about character and the importance of character in American daily lives. In his speech, the President touched on many elements of good character. I found it especially telling when the President emphasized the necessity of teaching every child these principles and the duty of every citizen to uphold these very same principles. I am going to quote a number of people. Let me quote Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great Presidents. He said: Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of our Nation. What I have been principally involved in, in our State of New Mexico, is called Character Counts. Six pillars of character are promoted in the schools. Almost all of them use the same six pillars: Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. I would submit that character truly does transcend time as well as religious, cultural, political, and socio-economic barriers. I believe President Bush's renewed focus on character sends a wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. I say that because it was not too long ago, during the last Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, re-authorization, that Senators Nunn, Dodd and I included a provision in the bill to fund pilot projects to increase character education. Since then, 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. In New Mexico, over 230,000 kids and nearly 90 percent of our schools participate in some form of character education. Most of New Mexico utilizes a wonderful character curriculum called ``Character Counts,'' which was established by Michael Josephson, a renowned ethicist from the Josephson Institute in California. Character Counts emphasizes six pillars of good character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. The point is that teachers like this approach. These six pillars are not based on any particular religion or philosophy. They merely represent the kind of values that everybody can agree are important for our children. I first learned of Character Counts after reading about it in a nationally syndicated newspaper column. I subsequently, found out that one school in my State had decided to try the program, and that it seemed to be working. Character Counts started in New Mexico in 1993 at the Bel Air Elementary School in Albuquerque. Bel Air had disciplinary problems, and teachers and the principal were looking for ways to address those problems. One of Bel Air's counselors, Mary Jane Aguilar, along with Don Whatley, a teacher, suggested that the school try a new approach, called Character Counts. They took the six pillars, with training from the Josephson Institute, and began integrating them into the daily lives of their students. Within 6 months of integrating Character Counts into the daily curriculum at Bel Air, the teachers noticed that disciplinary episodes were fewer and that the students began to treat each other better. After hearing of the success at Bel Air, I invited the mayor of Albuquerque in 1994 to join me in forming the Character Counts Leadership Council, to bring together community leaders, schools, teachers, parents, and students for the purpose of expanding Character Counts in Albuquerque and throughout the State. And after our initial efforts, I worked to establish Character Counts partnerships in other parts of the State, and the program spread quickly throughout New Mexico. Since then, I have helped bring Character Counts to over 70 schools and communities in New Mexico. Places like Farmington, Santa Fe, Roswell, Portales, Carlsbad, Silver City, Hobbs and Las Cruces. And in even smaller communities like Espanola, Mountainair, Dexter, Hagerman, Lake Arthur, Artesia, Capitan, Carrizozo, Lovington, Eunice, Jal, Tatum, Alamogordo, Socorro, Deming, and Gallup. As I travel around New Mexico, in virtually every town I have noticed school billboards with things like: ``The word for the month of May is `citizenship.' Character Counts!'' It is everywhere in the schools in New Mexico and I am proud to be a part of the program. Additionally, many of our communities now have adopted Character Counts in afterschool programs like the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, and 4-H. So when kids leave the classroom for after-school activities, they are still being taught how to make decisions based on the six pillars. I think what we are starting to see in New Mexico is the beginning of the Character Counts Generation--young people entering high school, who are bringing with them the lessons they have learned through Character Counts. Mr. President, I could go on for quite some time talking about Character Counts in New Mexico. The bottom line is that I believe it is working in New Mexico and other parts of the country. Consequently, I think we need to encourage more character education by providing a little more seed money for these worthwhile programs. So today, Senator Dodd and I are here to introduce a bill to accomplish just that. The Strong Character for Strong Schools Act seeks to encourage the creation of character education programs at the State and local level by providing grants to eligible entities. Grant recipients would use the funding to design and implement character education programs incorporating the following elements: caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice and fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and any other elements developed by the program. ``Eligible entities'' would include partnerships of, one, a State Educational Agency, SEA, and one or more school districts, two, an SEA, one or more school districts, and one or more nonprofit organizations, three, one or more school districts, or, four, a school district and a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit organizations could be institutions of higher education. The program would be authorized at $50 million for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. I also want to emphasize that our bill does not dictate to States which character education program to implement. Rather, the bill merely provides states general guidelines and allows them to adopt whatever principles or pillars they choose after consultation with their communities. Hopefully, our renewed effort will bring together even more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every child's life. And with the successful passage of the legislation we are introducing today, our new Secretary of Education, Rodney Paige, will be in a position to help make these programs a reality. Thank you and I hope that my colleagues will support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 311 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call to the attention of Senators on the floor, in particular Senator Breaux and Senator McCain and perhaps the New Jersey Senators, that one of the issues being discussed as we work on this bill is the advancement of technology so inspections can be done better. There is a very interesting new technology--this bill provides for some more money for research and technology--but there is a very interesting technology that is about to be offered to the pipelines that has been developed by a little company in New Mexico. Their name is LaSen Corporation. They have developed a system where a device is put on a light airplane and you fly over the pipeline. The device picks up the radiation from any kind of leakage whatsoever, reports it to the instrumentation. They can do 500 miles of pipeline a today, where today we do 5 to 10. They can do it at a cheaper price. With this bill putting a little more into technologies and companies with innovation such as this one, we are going to find better ways to do the inspections covering a greater number of miles per day at much cheaper rates. This bill will push that. In the meantime, entrepreneurs are finding some exciting technologies such as this little company that will have these devices very soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to speak to this amendment for a moment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor a bill to modernize our nation's pipeline safety programs. The issue of our country's pipeline safety came to the forefront after tragic explosions in Bellingham, Washington, and later, in my own state of New Mexico. On August 19, 2000, twelve members of an extended family were on a camping and fishing trip along the Pecos River near Carlsbad, NM. Just after midnight, a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a 350 foot high ball of flame into the air. Six of the campers died instantly. The six remaining family members later died from their horrific injuries. I am not here today to argue the reasons why pipeline tragedies, such as the one in Carlsbad, continue to occur. I am not here today to further admonish the traditionally poor regulatory enforcement by the Office of Pipeline Safety. In that regard, I am confident that the new Administration will assume its responsibility to vigorously oversee and enforce pipeline regulations. What I am here to do today, is to work so that we don't have to think twice before camping with our families and friends. I am here to do my part, to assume my responsibility, so that pipeline tragedies like in Carlsbad, do not happen again. Pipelines carry almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the crude oil and refined oil products. Three primary types of pipelines form a network of nearly 2.2 million miles, 7,000 of which lie in my own state of New Mexico. Pipelines stretch across our country. They allow us to obtain energy resources quickly and economically. In light of the energy crisis in California, and in the west in general, the value of our nation's pipeline system is obvious. We must have access to energy. Therefore, pipelines and the potential hazards they pose affect us all. It is time that we do something to ensure our safety while protecting our access to energy. Mr. President, this bill: Significantly increases States' role in oversight, inspection, and investigation of pipelines. Improves and expands the public's right to know about pipeline hazards. Dramatically increases civil penalties for safety and reporting violations. Increases reporting requirements of releases of hazardous liquids from 50 barrels to five gallons. Provides important whistle blower protections prohibiting discrimination by pipeline operators, contractors or subcontractors. Furthermore, the legislation would provide much needed funding for research and development in pipeline safety technologies. In fact, technology currently exists that might have detected weaknesses in pipelines around Carlsbad. Unfortunately, due to insufficient funding those products have yet to reach the market. La Sen Corporation in my own State of New Mexico has developed technology that can detect faulty pipelines where current pipeline inspection technology is not useable. La Sen's Electronic Mapping System can be very effective even in pipelines where conventional pig devices cannot be used. Pipeline inspection is costly and slow. Innovative new technologies could allow us to inspect all 2.2 million miles of pipeline each year in a cost effective manner. Today, pipeline inspection technology only covers 5-10 miles per day at a cost of $50 per mile. Again, La Sen's technology can survey 500 miles per day at a cost of $32 per mile. The bottom line is that today, we can take action that will hopefully make pipelines safer. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the potential dangers that pipelines pose and to minimize those dangers by unanimously passing this legislation. Mr. President, on August 19th, New Mexicans, and the country to some extent, woke up to find out that at a camping site near Carlsbad, NM, right by our second largest river, which has been frequently used by families, that a pipeline exploded reigning fire and terror. Six people died instantly and six other family members and friends died shortly thereafter. And then one additional lived for a while and then died. It was a very tragic event for a small State, especially a State where we know how important natural gas is. We produce a lot of it. We know how important crude oil is. We produce a lot of it. But nonetheless, it was thought by many that we could do better, that these kinds of things should not happen. I am not an expert, but I do believe that, as the facts have determined subsequent to that event, the Nation's inspection mechanism for pipelines has been underfunded, understaffed, and probably at a minimum, lackadaisical, and to some extent totally asleep. This bill says it is a far more important issue. And it comes at exactly the right time. Because we are assessing our country's energy situation. We are going to find, when the President's task force reports, that we are growing more and more dependent upon natural gas and becoming more and more dependent upon foreign oil. Everyone should know that pipelines are very important solution to our energy crisis. We already know there are 2.2 million miles of pipeline carrying natural gas across this country. Sixty-five percent of the crude oil refined is in these pipelines. And 7,000 of these miles are in the State of New Mexico. This bill does a number of significant things to improve the situation and, perhaps, make it such that we won't have these kinds of problems in my State, and wonderful people like those whose relatives woke up and read about their friends at this camp site that were burned to death, at the pipeline rupture site. Once again, the inspection process is rather crude today. We have to do a lot better. I am quite certain, that the small corporation to which I referred the Senate a minute ago, La Sen Corporation in New Mexico is not the only technology around, but it is among the most exciting. We are quite sure that company is going to succeed and that we will be inspecting the pipelines of our country, whether they hang above ground in some areas or whether they are underground. They are going to inspect them from small airplanes with technology on board that will be so technically significant, with reference to detection of the composites that are part of either natural gas or crude oil in the pipelines. They will detect and report those composites, much like a radar screen in these small airplanes. If that occurs, as I indicated a while ago, instead of 5 to 10 miles a day, with crews and current equipment, we will inspect 500 miles a day, and it will be ultimately cheaper per mile. That is what ultimately has to happen. This bill helps. It does put more money and directs more research into pipeline safety technologies. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator desire to speak? I will be glad to let the Senator proceed, and then I will follow.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my good friend from Texas. Mr. President, I know that by some strange coincidence the occupant of the Chair seems to occupy the Chair quite frequently when the Senator from New Mexico speaks. I do not know what that bodes for the distinguished Senator, but I will try to make it interesting today, again, perhaps. First, I am here because I want to share with the American people, and my constituents in New Mexico, the fact that this fiscal situation of our Nation is about as good as any generation could expect. This is a good situation. I have been here during times when we were going into debt almost as fast as we were gaining surpluses each year. We had accumulated enormous annual debts that we called the ``deficit,'' and the first good news is that by the time this year ends, we will have reduced the debt of our Nation by $600 billion. That is for real. That is not a graph. That is not a projection. We have already paid it down substantially. Unless something very dramatic happens in the next few months, that total number will be $600 billion in reduction. Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago, probably the most distinguished American on matters economic, and probably the most distinguished American in terms of impact for the positive on the American economy, Dr. Alan Greenspan, appeared before the Budget Committee of the Senate. For some people, it was a bombshell when he said in the course of his discussion, just as deficits can get too big and hurt the economy, so can surpluses get too big and, if not handled right, can hurt the economy. He came to that conclusion on the basis of his own assessment of where we are going. And without saying it, he certainly lent great credence to a big fact: surpluses are generating on the inside of the American budget at rates and levels never expected or understood in America. He at least implicitly acknowledged that the Congressional Budget Office was on the right track in estimating that the surpluses were growing and growing, and we were told a few days later by the Congressional Budget Office--and when we say that, we mean the whole paraphernalia that goes with estimating the American economy groups of economists, economists within the Congressional Budget Office, comparing their results with all kinds of outside estimators whose job it is, because of the businesses they work for or the funds they control, to be as right as they can--that the Congressional Budget Office which Dr. Greenspan was looking at was giving us their best estimate. There are some who say it is only an estimate. They could give us an estimate that is not their best estimate that would say the surplus is going to be $9 trillion. They could give us another estimate which would not be their best estimate that the surplus in the next decade is going to be $1 trillion. But when they were asked, which one should we build our policy on, the answer was, the modest growth path, the modest path in terms of increases in productivity, nonetheless sustained productivity increases and sustained and very large over the next decade. Use the one we gave you, they said. There are some people down here talking about all the possibilities and all the probabilities. When we are told about Social Security 40 years from now, Medicare 30, 40, or 50 years from now, we are using the best we can in giving those notions of costs and liabilities. We have $5.6 trillion. Let's just start right off and say, it is our responsibility to take a good look, with our fellow Senators, at what we ought to do with it. Let me start by saying, we want to pay the debt down as soon as practicable. It is no longer as soon as possible because we have been told now by both the Congressional Budget Office, our experts, and Dr. Alan Greenspan, that there is a limit as to how fast we pay it down. First, there is a limit because there is certain of our indebtedness that we cannot buy up; it is just not viable, such as savings bonds and the like; they are going to be there. There is other long-term debt that is too expensive to try to persuade the holders of those debts to cash them in now; it costs too much money. So close to $1 trillion cannot be paid off as soon as we have the surplus. We were told by Dr. Greenspan to use a glidepath for the reduction of the debt, and we will use one in whatever proposals we make to the committee--I will as chairman--and whatever we make to the Senate and to the people. The debt will be coming down rather fast, but not as fast as the money is accruing in the surplus because we are being told it won't work. We are also being told that is probably not good for the future of the American economy. Let me talk about the future of the American economy. There is a lot being discussed today about Social Security 20, 30, 40 years from now, and Medicare during the same time interval. Those who work very hard at demographics, telling us how many people are going to be collecting from these two major beneficiaries programs, how many are going to be paying in, and how much money we are going to have sitting around, are all suggesting, from what I hear, that the very best thing that can happen is that the American economy has very prolonged intervals of sustained growth with high productivity, much like the last 9 or 10 years. If we want the best outcome for the seniors of America, the baby boom population, in terms of their health care that we can pay for and their Social Security being payable, just have, during the next 40 years, three 9-year growth patterns, or four, like the immediate past ones we have had. That will put us closer to being able to meet our obligations than any other policy we can undertake in the Congress. In fact, another thing that has been discussed is a rainy day fund. The best rainy day fund is sustained economic growth over a prolonged period of time. That is the best rainy day fund. Why do I raise this right in the middle of a discussion about surpluses and what should we do with them? Because we are in a slowdown right now. We have different versions of how severe this slowdown is in the economy. Again, he has been correct most of the time. Dr. Greenspan says it is short lived and it is not too deep, and he is correcting it in terms of the short term by substantially lowering the interest, which is within the Federal Reserve Board's power. They have done that in a rather dramatic fashion the last couple months, and I surmise they will do some more. The question becomes, what policy could we adopt up here that would fit in with these interest reductions and produce long-term growth at sustained rates with low rates of inflation and probably high productivity? The best thing we can do is, one, pay down the debt on a glide path which says we will get it down but not abruptly. We will get it down within 2 or 3 years of the time that we would get it down if we put all of it on there, or tried to. Then we would take all of the Social Security trust fund money, put it in a lockbox; Medicare. And then we could still provide for very high priority items, both in appropriations and elsewhere. And what is left could, indeed, be $1.6 trillion that we ought to give back to the American people rather than keep up here to be spent. If we do not give some of this back to the American people, and start soon giving it back a little bit each year, I think the highest probability is that the pressure that will be responded to will be to spend it. There is already some evidence that in the last 6 months we have spent over the baseline, over the amount that would have been expected, $561 billion over the next decade. That is what we have done in appropriations. That is what we have done in entitlements. That is what we have done for veterans and a whole list of them. Surplus was here in abundance. Spending occurred in abundance, and I believe the American people would not like to see a much larger Government because of these surpluses. I think they would like to see Government at the most efficient level possible. They would clearly like us to give some of this money back to them. I will leave for others on another day whose tax plan is best. I already hear Democrats saying they want a tax cut but not as large as the President does, and they want different shapes and models of it. So, from my standpoint, I am not going to discuss the details of the plan, other than to say one thing: That same Dr. Alan Greenspan who came upon these facts and suggested to us that if we didn't give some of this money back to the people, there would be an accumulation of money in the hands of the Federal Government--and he saw no alternative other than the Federal Government would start investing it in assets of America--contends that would be a negative factor on the growth, prosperity, and efficiency of the American economy, which is what we need for the future of Social Security and Medicare and for our people to have sustained, increasing paychecks. When you add all this together, you would then say if you are going to give part of it back to the American people--and I want everybody to understand that after you take all the Social Security money and put it where it belongs, you have $3.1 trillion that is sitting there over the next decade if you believe, or at least have sufficient trust in the estimating, as I do, to act upon it. It is $3.1 trillion. That is almost unfathomable to people listening, and probably to most Senators and their staffs and my staff and me--$3.1 trillion. I could give you a number. Our whole budget for everything, including entitlements, appropriations, and the like is somewhere around $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion per year. So here we have a surplus that is almost twice as big as the total outlays of the Federal Government for a full year. That is at least a comparable. That same Dr. Greenspan has consistently told us, if you have a surplus, the best thing you can do is pay down the debt. He has qualified that now and said, yes, pay it down under a glidepath that is best for America. Don't pay it down abruptly because you are apt to create money in the pockets and drawers of the American Government that will invest it in less efficient Government by acquiring assets, owning things. Having said that, what else has he said repeatedly and reconfirmed? If you are going to have a positive impact on the prosperity level of Americans and have the economy grow, the best tax medicine is marginal rate reductions. Cut everybody's marginal taxes some. He says it will increase savings, it will increase investment, and it is the best way to use tax dollars. He says the third and worst way to have a positive impact on our future is to spend the surplus. I believe we are moving in the right direction. Debate is good and the President is leading well. I think before we are finished, we will have a significant tax cut of the right kind and still do the marriage penalty and death taxes, and we will have a very formidable expenditure budget. Everything can grow substantially, especially priority items. I think if we work together and work with the President, we can give the American people something very good by the end of this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a recent report released by The Russia Task Force entitled ``A Report Card on the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia.'' This bipartisan Task Force was co-chaired by Lloyd Cutler and Howard Baker. The report concludes that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material is ``the most urgent unmet national security threat for the United States today.'' This conclusion restates similar conclusions of other reports and analyses done over the past several years. The book Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy published in 1996 drew a similar conclusion. A January 2000 Center for Strategic and International Study report, ``Managing the Global Nuclear Materials Threat'' provided a concise analysis and numerous policy recommendations of this ``most devastating security threat.'' The U.S. response has not been and still is not commensurate to the threat. The Cooperative Threat Reduction programs have achieved much and contributed greatly to U.S. security. Still there is always room for innovative approaches to remaining issues and faster progress. The Department of Energy programs--from Materials Protection, Control and Accounting to the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention--have also enhanced U.S. security. But their work is not even close to complete, and a ``clear and present danger'' looms. I have repeatedly suggested that we have a very simple choice: we can either spend money to reduce the threat or spend more money in the future to defend ourselves. I am a strong believer that threat reduction is now underfunded and is the first-best approach in this case. The report estimated the cost at $30 billion to be provided not only from the U.S. budget, but also by Russia and other countries. The national security benefits to U.S. citizens from securing 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons would constitute the highest return on investment of any current national security program. How do we get there? One recommendation of the report is the dire need for a White House-level nonproliferation czar. Not just the Department of Energy and the Defense Department are involved in Russia. We have a number of federal agencies chipping away at specific, isolated aspects of the problem. But we do not have a coherent, integrated agenda. Overlaps and shortfalls exist. But no one person--with budgetary responsibility and requisite authority--can view the spectrum and identify the gaps, remedy inter-agency turf battles and bring the necessary coordination to get the job done efficiently and quickly. A nonproliferation czar should be given access to the President and the necessary budgetary powers. This person should be charged with formulating a cohesive strategy. This would allow us to coordinate and streamline our efforts. This person would identify which programs are ripe for more resources and which ones are already adequate to address the immediate need. The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation enacted in 1996 required that such a nonproliferation czar be put in place. Also, Section 3174 of the FY2001 Defense Authorization bill expressed again Congressional will to have one person accountable for our nonproliferation efforts. The Clinton Administration refused to adhere to the statute and repeatedly ignored other Congressional attempts to address the coordination problem. Other Commissions have also recommended this remedy in the past to no avail. I am hopeful that the national security team within the new Administration will see the merits of this recommendation and act on it soon. The Task Force also offered several other important insights and recommendations. These included: The threat today arises from Russia's weakened ability to secure its nuclear arsenal. Contributing factors include, delays in paying those who guard nuclear facilities, breakdown in command structures and inadequate budgets for stockpile protection. I would go even further than that. I believe that it's the economics that drives many of the threats and areas of potential conflict that the U.S. faces with Russia today. They sell nuclear technologies to Iran not because they like the Iranians and want to snub the Americans. The Russians are also aware that Iran could present a threat should it acquire the requisite nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. However, the Russian decision is driven by economics--not by ideology, not by historical ties, but by necessity. If we don't attempt to address the underlying economics of the situation, cooperation with Iran may continue and many other programs may eventually fail. The President should develop a strategic plan, consulting Congress and cooperating with the Russian Federation, to secure all weapons-usable material located in Russia, and to prevent the outflow of weapons of mass destruction-related scientific expertise. We can only move so fast as the Russians allow. We can only achieve sufficient transparency and get access so long as Russia agrees. However, I believe several existing programs, such as the Plutonium Disposition Agreement, have demonstrated that a serious U.S. commitment, especially in financial terms, is exactly the appropriate incentive to get action. Repeatedly, however, our nonproliferation programs with Russia are in a Catch-22 situation. Congress will not adequately fund them until they demonstrate success. A trickle at the tap is insufficient to persuade Russians of the seriousness of our intent. So, the U.S. programs stumble along unable to achieve the gains necessary because the Russians are reticent to play ball. And, in turn, Congress becomes even more leery of providing any funding at all in light of the meager gains. It's in our immediate national security interest to remedy this situation. The plan should review existing programs, identifying specific goals and measurable objectives for each program, as well as providing criteria for success and an exit strategy. It would be reasonable to propose that one plan be geared toward addressing the fundamental linkages between economic and social instability in Russia and specific proliferation threats. Without addressing the relationship of Russians' economic situation to a decaying nuclear command and control infrastructure, threats of diversion from within, rather than from outside, the weapons complex, and many other tight relationships, we will fail to prevent proliferation. The report envisions an 8-10 year time-frame. At that point, Russia will hopefully be in a position to take over any remaining work. In the next decade we could eliminate the greatest security challenge we currently face. Inaction will only drive up costs to defend ourselves against unknowables that we could have squelched had we had greater foresight. I believe President Bush and his team have foresight. President Bush repeatedly mentioned the importance of these programs as an integral part of his national security strategy. To quote our new National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice: American security is threatened less by Russia's strength than by its weakness and incoherence. This suggests immediate attention to the safety and security of Moscow's nuclear forces and stockpile. I believe this recent report reiterates this clear fact and sets forth several very important policy recommendations for tackling this challenge. I look forward to working with the new Administration to ensure that a decade from now we have protected U.S. citizens from this proliferation threat and secured a more peaceful future.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is somebody controlling time on our side?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to vote for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. Let me first say, if you read what he has done in his life, he is eminently qualified. For those who are wondering whether the President of the United States has picked a person who can, in fact, be a real Attorney General for the United States, they can have no doubt about it. He graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, which is a very reputable university. In fact, it is one you do not get into unless they already know you are very bright. That means, if you look at that, he was trained to be a good lawyer. Frankly, we have had a lot of Attorneys General of the United States who were not good lawyers. There is no question he is trained and has proven that he is not simply good but very good at matters that pertain to law. Secondly, as a Senator from one of the sovereign States, I feel very concerned about the way this man is being treated and why the votes are being garnered against him because if I were from the State of Missouri instead of the State of New Mexico--and maybe I will transplant myself there just for the next 3 or 4 minutes--I would ask, what kind of people live in Missouri? I think I would conclude that, as you look across America, they are very good people, very diverse. They earn a living in very different ways, from agriculture to manufacturing. And guess what. They elected this man who has been under fire day after day, they elected him to be attorney general of their State two times. They elected him to be Governor twice. Then they elected him to be a Senator. Frankly, does anybody really believe the people of Missouri would elect a person who would discriminate against people in the State of the population that has been discussed here? Do they think the citizens of the State of Missouri would elect more than once a man to be attorney general of their entire State, for all of their people, and that they have all been beguiled and fooled because he really was not a good attorney general; that he was prejudiced; that he was discriminatory against people; that he did not follow the law? That is pure bunk because he followed the law; he enforced the law. They elected him Governor twice. For this Senate to spend this much time trying to find little things about this man that are almost the kind of things you would not even ask anybody about--I looked at some of the questions Senators asked this man, and they are not only petty in some respects, but they deserve an answer, a simple answer: I don't remember. I can't understand. It's too long ago. They asked him questions about conversations 15 years ago with reference to one of the subject matters: Did you talk to so-and-so? Well, I do not remember. I am a reasonably good Senator, and I can tell you right now, I really remember things when I was 9, and 10, and 12, but I don't remember too well things that happened 2 years ago. And I bet you there are a lot of Senators like that. I will bet you there are a lot of great attorneys general in the United States like that. In fact, John Ashcroft enforced laws in his State as attorney general that were inconsistent with his beliefs. And you know what. Attorneys general across America are doing that all the time. They are elected by the people. The people know they differ in many respects. They go in, and what do they do? They follow the law. He is going to follow the law. The one difference versus many other Attorneys General, is that he is a real lawyer. He will be a real Attorney General. He will run that place because he has the intellectual capacity, the organizational ability, and the desire to be a great Attorney General. My friend and former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, is fully qualified to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States, and I will vote to confirm his nomination. I served in this body with Senator Ashcroft for 6 years, and I know him as a man of great honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, honesty and integrity are often characteristics worthy of only secondary praise in today's society. Nevertheless, it is vitally important that the public has confidence that our Attorney General, who enforces our laws, is possessed of these traits. Of honesty, George Washington once remarked, ``I hope I shall always possess firmness of virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an Honest Man.'' It is my belief that Senator Ashcroft possesses such character and is worthy of the title. Senator Ashcroft graduated from Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School. He practiced law in his State of Missouri, and then served as Missouri's attorney general from 1976-1985. He was twice Missouri's Governor. He was later elected to the U.S. Senate, where he served with distinction on the Judiciary Committee. Throughout his career, he has had an impressive record on crime. During his tenure as Governor, he increased funding for local law enforcement, which resulted in a significant increase in full-time law enforcement officers. He helped enact tougher standards and sentencing for gun crimes, and led the fight against illegal drugs. His tough stance on drugs is important to me because we are seeking to eradicate a growing heroin problem in northern New Mexico. While Governor, total State and Federal spending for antidrug efforts in Missouri increased nearly 400 percent. In the Senate, he cosponsored the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. Despite his impressive credentials and proven record, Senator Ashcroft's opponents suggest that his religious and ideological beliefs will prevent him from enforcing our Nation's laws. It is true that he is a religious man with strong convictions. It is untrue that this will prevent him from carrying out his duties. Time and time again throughout his distinguished career, this nominee has enforced laws that run counter to his personal views. While serving as Missouri's attorney general, a Christian group that Senator Ashcroft favored was distributing Bibles on school grounds. After careful review, he issued an opinion stating that such activity violated the State constitution. On another matter, even though Senator Ashcroft is pro-life, he has unequivocally stated that he will investigate and prosecute any conduct by pro-life supporters at abortion clinics that violates the law. His prior actions support this assertion. He once asked pro-life marchers to sign a nonviolence pledge and to observe ordinary rules of courtesy with both ``friend and foe.'' It was concern about potential violence at clinics that led to his vote for Senator Schumer's amendment to the bankruptcy bill that made debts incurred as a result of abortion clinic violence non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Other critics contend that this nominee is insensitive to minorities. His record on the whole indicates otherwise. This is a charge I take very seriously because my state of New Mexico has a large population of Native Americans and Hispanics. I am deeply concerned about the interests of these and other minority groups throughout the nation, and I have always worked to ensure that minority rights are protected. In fact, I have supported affirmative action programs in nearly every federal agency. I will hold this nominee's feet to the fire on minority issues. As Governor, Senator Ashcroft enacted Missouri's first hate crimes bill. He was also one of the nation's first governors to sign into law the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. In addition, he appointed numerous African Americans to the state bench, including the first African American ever selected associate circuit judge in St. Louis County. After this appointment, the Mound City Bar Association of St. Louis-- one of the oldest African-American Bar Associations in the United States--said of then-Governor Ashcroft: Your appointment of attorney Hemphill demonstrated your sensitivity, not only to professional qualifications, but also to the genuine need to have a bench that is as diverse as the population it serves. . . . The appointment you have just made and your track record for appointing women and minorities are certainly positive indicators of your progressive sense of fairness and equity. We commend you. This is not the description of a man who is insensitive to the needs of minorities. Senator Ashcroft's concern for minorities did not stop when he came to the U.S. Senate. As a matter of fact, while in the United States Senate, he and Senator Feingold convened the first Senate hearing on racial profiling, a practice Senator Ashcroft described as unconstitutional. He testified during his recent confirmation hearings that if confirmed he would make the elimination of racial profiling a priority. Senator Ashcroft supported 26 of 27 African-American judges who were nominated to the federal judiciary. However, he did not support Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White. Nor did a majority of the U.S. Senate, 77 Missouri sheriffs, the National Sheriffs' Association, and other law enforcement groups. Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White was based on a review of Judge White's dissenting opinions in death penalty cases. In my view, a person with honesty and integrity who has a strong law enforcement record and a demonstrated willingness to follow the law regardless of personal beliefs is exactly the type of individual that should lead the Justice Department. That's the Senator Ashcroft I know, and he will serve with distinction as Attorney General. He has my full support. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am very pleased, and I congratulate the leadership here on our side and on their side for finally deciding we would vote today, not too long from now. I am hoping John Ashcroft will be confirmed. I do not know what this magical number of whether the Democrats can get 40 or 41 is all about, but I surely would not like to be a Senator on the other side who is told: We need your vote so we can get 41 votes against this man. What does that mean? Is that some reason to vote against this candidate? To me, if I were on that side and somebody told me: We only have 39 against him; we need you to make 40, and then told somebody else 41, I would say: Don't you think I ought to decide whether I want to vote for him? What does this 49, 40, or 41 mean? I don't understand it, except some think it means that is strength.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am finished. I will yield the floor. It is strength, meaning you can defeat the next person President Bush sends up to be a Supreme Court judge. What is that about? Nobody knows who he is going send, what his philosophy is going to be. Pure speculation. Pure speculation. And they are asking Senators to vote so they can have that kind of message to those who are worried about candidates who are conservative like this man? I don't really think it matters too much if it is 39, 38, 40, or 41; he is going to be Attorney General. I tell you, I really predict he will be a good one, a very good one. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to salute my fellow New Mexican, Eluid L. Martinez, who has just finished a remarkable five- year term as Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. As the first Commissioner to serve in two different centuries, Mr. Martinez assumed control over the nation's second largest wholesale water supplier and hydroelectric producer in the country when he was appointed by the President in 1995. A native of Cordova in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, Commissioner Martinez was the first member of his family to receive a college degree. He holds an undergraduate degree in civil engineering from New Mexico State University and is a licensed Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor. During his tenure Commissioner Martinez has been recognized by many Reclamation stakeholders for his evenhanded approach in addressing western water and power issues. He received the Statesman of the Year award by the National Water Resources Association in November, 2000, for his diligence in helping solve the chronic water shortages in the western United States. He has been responsible for implementing the Bureau of Reclamation transition to a water resources agency with responsibilities for delivering project benefits while balancing the conflicting demands of Reclamation's constituencies. Commissioner Martinez' professionalism and expertise in his field has gained him the respect of all members of Congress who have worked with him. Commissioner Martinez has been a leader in privatizing Reclamation projects wherever possible, returning projects to the users who paid for them. He has been an important factor in implementing legislatively mandated environmental requirements, and trying to stretch a finite supply of water to an ever thirsty West. Commissioner Martinez has endeavored to create a more diverse workforce to ensure a future supply of capable individuals for the Federal government. In fact, preparing for the future is one of Commissioner Martinez's hallmarks of achievement. Before entering Federal service, Eluid Martinez retired as the State Engineer for New Mexico. He has served as Secretary of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, as the New Mexico Commissioner to six Interstate Compact Commissions, and as a member of the New Mexico Water Quality Commission. He has held executive positions in 12 regional and national water associations, but, as the parent of three children, took the time to run for and serve as President of the City of Santa Fe School Board. Filling many positions over a 27 year career in the State Engineer's office, Eluid Martinez developed many skills that served him well as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. His service in New Mexico started with the State Highway Department in 1968 and subsequently in the State Engineer's Office included positions as Chief of the Hydrographic Survey Section, Acting Chief of the Administrative Services Division, Acting Chief of the Water Use and Planning Section, Chief of the Technical Division, principal Hearing Examiner for the State Engineer, and ultimately State Engineer from 1990 to 1994. I am proud to count as a friend such a hardworking fellow native of New Mexico, who has made the most of his opportunities. Eluid Martinez has performed a valuable service to the Nation and especially to the people of the West in both his state and Federal positions. In addition to his extensive administrative abilities Mr. Martinez hails from a rich heritage of nine generations of woodcarvers, or santeros. He is the nephew of internationally famous Santero Woodcarver and sculptor George Lopez of Cordova. Eluid himself is also a quite talented artist and I was very honored to have received several of his beautiful drawings. The fact that Eluid's sculptures, lithographs, and prints reside in the permanent collections of the Smithsonian Institution's American Art Museum, the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center, the Denver Art Museum and other major collections adds to and broadens his legacy to the United States and his home state of New Mexico. Eluid will be a tough act to follow and I hope that his successor will have an understanding of western water issues and will continue working to achieve a balance between New Mexico's many competing interests. I know that as he leaves the demanding job of Commissioner, Eluid and his wife, Suzanne, are looking forward to spending more time in our beautiful home state of New Mexico.