Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 4:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2001 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on ``The Effectiveness of Federal Employee Incentive Programs.''

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2001 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2001 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in 106 Dirksen.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Right.

Mr. DOMENICI. Or they could be saying that if you give them the choice, they will all take what the Republicans are offering here today. Frankly, that is thought by some to be a very good argument against the bill, right? I think it is a very good argument in favor of it, I would think, if what we are doing is so good that under all circumstances a significant portion of the school districts and superintendents and commissioners of education would go down the same path for another 5 years.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I will say this on a subject we will be together on. I understand that the parity for insurance purposes for the mentally ill in America bill--the Domenici-Wellstone bill for total parity--not some piece of parity, no discrimination of outreach, we are going to have a hearing soon, right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Some people will recognize that, even according to Wellstone, Domenici is right sometimes. I thank the Senator very much. I wish to take a few minutes to speak now because I am not at all sure that tomorrow, or even the next day, I could speak to this issue, so I am going to do it tonight. I want to start by saying that it is really good for Americans--whoever watches C-SPAN, or whoever pays attention to what we are saying on the floor--to hear speeches about how we are going to improve education for every child in America, or even to hear speeches about the Federal Government needing to do more of what it has been doing, or speeches saying if we just paid attention and took care of things, all these children in America the education system would improve. Let's be realistic, for starters. We don't pay for much of public education. Now, considering the tone of the arguments about what we ought to be doing for education and for all our children, one would never believe that we only pay for about 7 to 8 percent of what it costs to educate a child in the public schools of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa--I won't say New Mexico because we get about 9 percent, because we have a lot more children who are dependent upon the Federal Government in terms of military establishments, plus our Indian children. But let's make sure everybody knows that this great national debate on education is talking about 7 percent of what is used to fund the public schools of America in the 50 sovereign States. Let's make sure we understand fundamentally the States--in some places counties, in other places cities--collect local taxes, in some cases property taxes, in other cases sales taxes, in other cases income taxes--not here in Washington, but in the capital of Santa Fe, NM, or in the great State of Pennsylvania, or the State of Oregon or Washington--they collect the money, they have the programs, and they decide between the State, the legislature, the school districts, and in many places, commissioners of education, what to do with all the real money that is applied to the public education system and, thus, the students of America. So it may shock some to know that education reform is occurring in the State capitals, at the education departments across America, and our debate is about a little, tiny margin of 7 to 8 or 8\1/2\ percent of what goes into each student. We are doing this in the context of trying to improve and help our public schools, because we have been greatly enhanced, as a nation, during past generations, when the public education system of America was the model for the world. What many of us are trying to do is take it back to the glory days when every student received a better education and the manifold problems that teachers experienced in the classrooms today were, in some way, alleviated so more of our children can learn. In doing that, the issue is, for this little share that the Federal Government sends down to our school districts by way of special grants, hundreds of categorical programs, title I programs, which is $8 billion or $9 billion, all of those programs go down and help in some way in the total mix of dollars and programs that the cities and counties and States and commissioners of education put together. The question is, Can we do better with our small amount of money than we have been doing? Let me assure the Senators that whichever side they are on on this bill, to reform the education system, which is reported out by our Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, that this is one of their education functions--this bill, in essence--and it may shock people to know this--provides an opportunity to leave things just as they are. So for those on that side of the aisle, or perhaps one or two on our side of the aisle--I don't know--that say they want the Federal Government to continue to be involved in all these programs and to be telling everybody how to run them, so that 7 or 8 percent of the money generates 50 percent of the paperwork, we want that to continue. Just wait and read the bill in its entirety and if that is what you like, the school boards, the commissioners of education, or the Governors who run education in our States can decide to leave it just as it is. Now, I can't understand how schoolteachers can be against an approach that says this is not working as well as it should. But if you like it, please understand this bill says you can keep having it like it is. That is why we call it a menu. You get to look at a menu. If you went out to eat, you wouldn't like to have in front of you three items we have been having for 15 years. And our nutrition isn't working well, and our bodies aren't feeling well, but we get the same restaurant menu of the same three things. Wouldn't we like it if the menu added a few other things just to try? This is a new approach only in that you can keep it as it is or you have another couple of choices. What is wrong with some choice which might bring some innovation, which might cause us to do better with our 7 or 8 percent of education than we are doing, because it might let the States, the school districts, the education commissioners, and the principals meld our dollars into their needs in a better way. If you want to keep it as it is, you can come down here and say: That is what I want; I am voting for this bill; and I sure hope my State keeps it as it is. Right? We sure hope whoever wants to say that, that we will keep the same menu we have been having, and we don't want to add to the menu, we don't want to add to the choice. It is wonderful to be a Republican who can come to the floor and say: We don't think the menu we have been delivering to the schools of America with our 8 percent is a very good menu. It is not the best menu, and we are going to provide some additional items of choice. I want to thank a few Senators for taking the early lead on this. In that regard, I want to recognize Senator Slade Gorton because he is the first one who came up with the idea, albeit it was a piece of education, to say let them choose down there, but if they don't want to choose, let them keep on doing what they are doing, but here is a new opportunity to handle those Federal dollars differently. That imaginary, innovative, visionary idea has been expanded so now there are a number of really interesting choices that those who educate our children in our sovereign States can choose. Essentially, if I went no further and did not explain the choices on this menu, I think I might have performed a minor service for those who are interested to find out that the bill we are talking about says the old menu doesn't work, let's try a new menu and put some new items on it--not mandatory, but that you can choose. Let me tell you how poorly we do our job at the national level when we decide we are going to do more than that and we are going to put a little bit of money in and tell everybody what to do. Let me talk about special education for a minute. Special education is an admirable commitment--in fact, some would think one of the greatest civil commitments that could be made in the field of education. The National Government began not many years ago to say you are going to educate children who are hard to educate, who are special education children, and special needs children. And we came along and said exactly how you should do it; if you want our money, you do it this way. The courts interpreted and told you in even more detail how you are going to do it. Lo and behold, we said we will pay for 40 percent and the States and localities will pay for 60 percent. Is anyone interested tonight? Take out a piece of paper and write down your guess of this year as to how much we are paying of the 40 percent. If you think we must be paying 35 or 38, you are desperately wrong. We are currently paying 11 percent instead of the 40 percent to which we committed, and the years have passed us by. If you run the school and you get Federal money, don't you think you would be a little bit upset if we came along and told you how to do it, and then we didn't give you the money but our law said we would give you the money? I have to compliment a couple of Senators who have said the best thing we could do is put more money in special education so the schools wouldn't be paying so much for it, and that would loosen up money for them to do other things with. In particular, Senator Judd Gregg has been a leader on that initiative. It goes unnoticed because it is not very politically sexy, at least to the general public, to say we have increased the funding for special education by 4 or 5 percent in the last 3 or 4 years. That doesn't sound like coming to the floor and giving a speech about how we want to take care of every child in America, when we are only paying for 8 percent of the bill, and how we ought to be taking care of all those needs out there when the Government doesn't even try to take care of most of them. We still have a commitment to 40 percent. We are only paying for 11 percent of that. We come along and have a bill, and people want more of the same. I think educators would like to try something different. I congratulate the committee because they reported out a bill that has some very exciting items added to the menu. I suggest people can call it what they like in terms of trying to describe the new items on the menu. But I see it as an opportunity on the part of the constitutionally enfranchised leader in a State, whether it is a commissioner of education, or the legislature, or the Governor. This bill says you can collapse the strings, you can collapse the rigid boundaries in two different ways--at least two. One is an approach that is called Straight A's. The Straight A's Program says there is an option for 15 States--not all of them, and they don't need to take it. But 15 States can opt for a State demonstration program. It will be for at least a 5-year commitment on the part of the Federal Government and up to--isn't that interesting?--13 big grant programs and little grant programs can be collapsed. The thing that makes them rigid and makes them kind of a one-shoe- fits-all concept on education is that up to 13 can be collapsed. They can collapse five of them, if they choose, and leave the other eight as being as rigid as they currently are. In that ability to collapse under Straight A's is an option to use title I money--our biggest program--in that manner along with other programs. That is not going to be free to the school districts of America, nor to the principals and teachers, because commensurate with it is going to be an agreement on the part of the States. The States are going to agree, if they take this option, this added menu item, to a significant new standard of student achievement within their schools. They are going to figure out a way locally to see if collapsing these programs and administering them differently helps the schools. We are going to say you can continue to do this if you have a plan to improve student achievement, which we choose to call accountability. We also talk about the collapsing of the rigidity of the program--the rigid boundaries. We call that flexibility. I think it is kind of better to say you are permitted to collapse the programs, administer them less rigidly, and require student achievement, and in return measure student achievement. But if you want to choose the Straight A's Program, my guess is that 15 States are going to run quickly to get it and it will be used by 15 States. In the end, they are going to be saying: Let's try this new thing. Let's see if we can collapse these programs and do a better job. The agreement with the Government will require that achievement occur at every level, including those covered by the current Title I program. We have said if you do not want that menu item, because it is a pretty big step away from what we have, there is another one called Performance Partnerships which the Government permitted. You can collapse up to 13 programs, but that cannot include Title I, the program whereby we measure aid to schools based upon the number of poor children in the school. What we are saying there is the Secretary of Education will still be able to determine the boundary and use of Title I money. That is a second option--collapsing up to 13. But the Secretary still keeps his finger on the Title I money. The Governors thought that would be a very good option, and we put that in. I don't see anything wrong with that. Then we say for 10 States and 20 school districts, in exchange for new accountability, new agreements on student achievement, you can switch the current Title I funding from school based to a child- centered approach. Isn't that interesting? We are not interested in school-based education programs. That is just a mechanism for talking about an institution that educates children. It seems to me what we are talking about is that all the programs should be child centered and we are going to give 10 States and 20 school districts the option to choose a new funding mechanism for Title I. Eight billion dollars is my recollection of the $14.6 billion we spend on elementary and secondary education. It is more than half. We are going to say for these few States and few school districts, you want to be bold? Want to enter into a student achievement agreement? In exchange for that, you get the opportunity to have Title I money follow the students. I close by saying that the committee did another exciting thing. We are all concerned about improving teacher quality. Whether we have excellent teachers or not, I don't think we ought to pass judgment on the floor. We hear many of the schools are worried that teachers are not necessarily as highly qualified as the principals, the superintendents, the school boards, and the parents want them to be. We understand that is a major, major concern. We think part of it is because we don't have an adequate way of helping develop better teachers. We have decided to have a new State teacher development grant program, with a substantially larger amount of money, about $2 billion for fiscal year 2001, that focuses on the long term and sustained development of teachers, and includes professional development for administrators and principals. There will be some who will come to the floor and say right now that we don't have all this in one pot of money. We have some very special programs--one is the Eisenhower program--that we want to leave alone. Why do we want to leave them alone? Shouldn't we give the States an option to say they don't need all that preciseness, if they want to use it in their school districts in their State to produce long-term benefits by way of teachers being better equipped to teach their subject matter? There is much more to say and I will have printed the 13 programs that can be collapsed and made less than 13 in either the Straight A's or the performance partnership. I will include that list in the Record to be attached to my comments. Some of the attached lists are technical, but those in the education community who would be interested will know what the programs are. Let me summarize. For those on the other side of the aisle who want to talk about education as if we are debating the funding of public schools in America, let's put it back where it belongs. We are debating funding 7 to 8 percent of the public education in America. That is all we provide. One would not guess it from the rhetoric about what we ought to get done with that 7 or 8 percent. We will hear speeches that we ought to totally perfect the education system and take care of every child in America. What is the responsibility for the 93 percent of the dollars that come from the State or the county? They are doing that with that money. First, we will say, if you want to keep the system, keep it. It is almost hard to understand how the other side and the President can get so worked up they won't pass this bill. Really, they could say to their constituents, we are so sure our programs of the past are good, we will vote for this bill and you can choose to go with a program of the past. The bill says that. If you want a program from the past, you can have it. That is the debate. They want the programs of the past reiterated but we say, no, no, let's give you that choice and give you a few other new choices. The choices are exciting because we may find by entering into a multiyear student achievement agreement called accountability, where some flexibility is provided, that 7 or 8 percent might make a difference. It might be such that at the end of 5 years, using it that way by choice, you might really have an impact. If we continue the way we are, we will produce a bill, or no bill, if the President insists on getting what he wants. I have not argued 1 second today about who will put the money in the program. We are probably going to put as much money in the program as the Democrats in the appropriations process. We will fund at very close to the same amount of dollars. Let's not get off on the side that the Republicans don't want to pay for education. We want to try a different approach. There are some who will say to be different we want to offer a whole bunch of amendments for the Federal Government to do new things. We will tell them how to do things. We have been doing that and every 5 years we have another list, but it is the Federal Government's list of how to fix up our kids. However, if you look back, it isn't working. It is not the Federal dollar that is not working. We are just a little bit of the money. We ought to try to figure out how our little bit of the money can be the most helpful to those spending all the money--93 percent of the dollar in some cases. How can we help them do a better job? I think it is a shame if this bill and this concept gets defeated in the Senate because we don't want to try a new approach, or if we want to add to it a variety of measures not relevant to this education bill. These are issues that must be debated. Some Members want to put them on this bill to either kill it or make us vote on issues not part of this. Whoever does that, the final judgment will be simple. If you kill this bill with this innovative approach of different items on the menu for our schools in America's sovereign States, if you kill that either by nonperformance or an outright vote against it and kill it, you have decided the Federal Government in all cases knows best and we ought to continue to tell our educators, superintendents, and commissioners of education precisely how they can help their children with our dollars. No more, no less; do it our way. I frankly believe, although I hate to say this in political tones, I think for the first time, in the case of this Senator--and I have been here awhile--we can debate this any way we want. We won't lose this debate. We win this, unless we let somebody pull the wool over our eyes about what we are trying to do, what we have been doing and just how much of the Federal money is involved versus the State and cities that we don't control-- States, counties and school boards. I think everybody will understand we ought to permit innovation, not rigidity by dictating specifically how moneys ought to be used. That is a little lengthy for tonight. Some people know it is not so lengthy for me. But it is the second speech I made today. I spoke about nuclear power with as much energy and enthusiasm as I did on this bill. I am saying, as I leave the floor of the Senate, there are some very good Senators who will take over and I am satisfied will close out the day with some pretty good remarks about where we ought to be trying to move in lockstep with those who really want to change education at the local level, instead of walking along, kicking at them, telling them do it our way. I think we ought to walk along in some sort of lockstep by letting them have some real choice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. What was the Kennedy amendment? I didn't hear the title.

Mr. DOMENICI. I can also remember when you first thought about this idea. We were walking down one of the halls here and you were saying you didn't quite understand how you could get around all the opposition to trying something different. I think I pulled on your arm and said, ``Why don't you give them the option to leave it like it is?'' You are pretty quick. You never asked me again. But that has become the cornerstone, from your bill to this bill. For those who think what we are doing is really good and really right, that we are not trying to take it away. Right? Those people who say that is not enough, what must they be saying?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation, the Nuclear Weapons Complex Conversion Act of 2000, to dramatically improve our programs that deal with non-proliferation risks associated with the Former Soviet Union. My legislation will also significantly enhance our ability to consider future arms control agreements. Today, we face challenges involving the warheads, materials, and expertise developed during the days of the Cold War. With that War behind us, arguably the greatest global security challenge involves containment and management of proliferation threats--many of which are in danger of being fueled with former Soviet capabilities. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated frustration with the Administration's progress in this key area. A significant part of this concern arises from today's wide range of uncoordinated programs, all dealing with non-proliferation issues. Programs aren't integrated into one coherent thrust led by a focused and committed Administration. Our non-proliferation programs resemble a patchwork quilt designed and executed by several artists. The net effect of our non-proliferation programs is far less than it could be and needs to be. These programs are begging for coherent oversight and inter-agency cooperation. To address this need, which is far from new, the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation called for appointment of a new-level non-proliferation czar. This Administration never acted on this law. Without this coordination, inter-agency turf fights remain unresolved, potential synergies aren't exploited, and redundancy and inefficiency can run rampant. My legislation therefore expresses a Sense of Congress that the time is long overdue for this coordination. My legislation also deals specifically with the largest unmet challenges of the former Soviet Russian nuclear weapons complex. That complex contains three main challenges: weapons production capacity, materials for those weapons, and people. Programs associated with the materials, where goals and progress are easier to define and measure, are demonstrating credible progress. But, the other areas present more complex challenges. The ``brain drain'' issue reflects a concern that scientists and engineers with critical knowledge might sell their knowledge to rogue states. The weapons production issue raises concern about Russia's ability to rapidly reconstitute forces that could invalidate future arms control agreements. These twin issues then, non-proliferation and the credibility of future arms control agreements, urgently need improved approaches. We already have a Nuclear Cities Initiative within the Department of Energy, but it has barely begun to scratch the surface in dealing with the problem of their cash-strapped and over-sized nuclear complex. To date, NCI has not garnered enough Congressional support to have stable and realistic funding, largely because it hasn't set goals and milestones against which progress can be documented and measured. The concerns on weapon production capabilities highlight very large asymmetries. The U.S. has significantly reduced the size of our nuclear weapons production complex. These reductions were accomplished openly, and are transparent to Russia. Russia, in contrast, has barely started to downsize its complex. Their complex is still sized at Cold War levels. Little information about the Russian complex is shared, and ten of its most sensitive cities remain closed. Although the Russian Federal Ministry of Atomic Energy has announced its intent to significantly downsize its workforce, it has been slow in accomplishing this goal and any progress is very closely held. The current Nuclear Cities Initiative was established to assist Russia in creating job opportunities for employees who are not required to support realistic Russian security requirements and to facilitate conversion of the production facilities. It has focused on creation of commercial ventures that provide self-sustaining jobs, primarily in three of the closed cities. The current program scope, progress, and funding are not consistent with the scale of the threats to us. I want to significantly advance our progress in the nuclear cities. However, to gain sufficient advocacy for a major funding increase, the program must demonstrate rapid progress in downsizing and an ability for the U.S. to track progress against verifiable milestones that support a Russian complex consistent with their future national security requirements. My legislation substantially increases the funding and scope of our programs with the Russian nuclear weapons complex to assist the Russian Federation in restructuring its complex, but does this conditioned on a commitment from the Russian Federation to measure progress against realistic, transparent milestones. Without their commitment, and without an ability to track progress against such milestones, it is simply not appropriate for us to continue to fund programs within their complex. My legislation supports the ongoing commercialization programs in their complex. In addition, however, it authorizes the federal government to contract for research in support of United States agencies in cases where the Russians have unique capabilities and facilities. My legislation demands that funding for this expanded program, for the 2002 fiscal year and beyond, be contingent on making significant measurable progress on key issues of strategic interest to both countries, including: Demonstrable conversion from military to civilian activities at the four cities participating in the FY 2001 program. Development of a ten year plan by the Russian Federation for a nuclear weapons complex downsized to reflect the changing national security needs of Russia. This plan should reflect a production capacity consistent with future arms control agreements. Increased transparency of Russian production capacity and nuclear materials inventories to eventually match that of the United States. In addition, my legislation authorizes funding for educational initiatives both in the United States and in the Former Soviet Union focused on developing new non-proliferation experts. There are now few people who can assist in these difficult downsizing processes while, at the same time, minimizing the threat presented by residual weapons material or expertise. Significant cooperation from the Russian government must occur for milestones to be set and met. That won't happen unless they concur that these steps are also in their best interests. From interactions with senior levels of their Ministry of Atomic Energy, I've learned that they share the view that progress in this area is in the best interests of both nations. It is certainly in our mutual interests to accomplish the transition of both nations' nuclear weapons complexes with as much care and as little proliferation risk as possible. It is also in each nation's interests for the other to maintain a sufficiently credible complex to support realistic national security objectives. To the extent that we can take these steps in a mutually transparent way, we should be able to assure each other of our future intentions. Mr. President, this legislation can significantly impact our non- proliferation and future arms control national security objectives.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation, the Nuclear Weapons Complex Conversion Act of 2000, to dramatically improve our programs that deal with non-proliferation risks associated with the Former Soviet Union. My legislation will also significantly enhance our ability to consider future arms control agreements. Today, we face challenges involving the warheads, materials, and expertise developed during the days of the Cold War. With that War behind us, arguably the greatest global security challenge involves containment and management of proliferation threats--many of which are in danger of being fueled with former Soviet capabilities. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated frustration with the Administration's progress in this key area. A significant part of this concern arises from today's wide range of uncoordinated programs, all dealing with non-proliferation issues. Programs aren't integrated into one coherent thrust led by a focused and committed Administration. Our non-proliferation programs resemble a patchwork quilt designed and executed by several artists. The net effect of our non-proliferation programs is far less than it could be and needs to be. These programs are begging for coherent oversight and inter-agency cooperation. To address this need, which is far from new, the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation called for appointment of a new-level non-proliferation czar. This Administration never acted on this law. Without this coordination, inter-agency turf fights remain unresolved, potential synergies aren't exploited, and redundancy and inefficiency can run rampant. My legislation therefore expresses a Sense of Congress that the time is long overdue for this coordination. My legislation also deals specifically with the largest unmet challenges of the former Soviet Russian nuclear weapons complex. That complex contains three main challenges: weapons production capacity, materials for those weapons, and people. Programs associated with the materials, where goals and progress are easier to define and measure, are demonstrating credible progress. But, the other areas present more complex challenges. The ``brain drain'' issue reflects a concern that scientists and engineers with critical knowledge might sell their knowledge to rogue states. The weapons production issue raises concern about Russia's ability to rapidly reconstitute forces that could invalidate future arms control agreements. These twin issues then, non-proliferation and the credibility of future arms control agreements, urgently need improved approaches. We already have a Nuclear Cities Initiative within the Department of Energy, but it has barely begun to scratch the surface in dealing with the problem of their cash-strapped and over-sized nuclear complex. To date, NCI has not garnered enough Congressional support to have stable and realistic funding, largely because it hasn't set goals and milestones against which progress can be documented and measured. The concerns on weapon production capabilities highlight very large asymmetries. The U.S. has significantly reduced the size of our nuclear weapons production complex. These reductions were accomplished openly, and are transparent to Russia. Russia, in contrast, has barely started to downsize its complex. Their complex is still sized at Cold War levels. Little information about the Russian complex is shared, and ten of its most sensitive cities remain closed. Although the Russian Federal Ministry of Atomic Energy has announced its intent to significantly downsize its workforce, it has been slow in accomplishing this goal and any progress is very closely held. The current Nuclear Cities Initiative was established to assist Russia in creating job opportunities for employees who are not required to support realistic Russian security requirements and to facilitate conversion of the production facilities. It has focused on creation of commercial ventures that provide self-sustaining jobs, primarily in three of the closed cities. The current program scope, progress, and funding are not consistent with the scale of the threats to us. I want to significantly advance our progress in the nuclear cities. However, to gain sufficient advocacy for a major funding increase, the program must demonstrate rapid progress in downsizing and an ability for the U.S. to track progress against verifiable milestones that support a Russian complex consistent with their future national security requirements. My legislation substantially increases the funding and scope of our programs with the Russian nuclear weapons complex to assist the Russian Federation in restructuring its complex, but does this conditioned on a commitment from the Russian Federation to measure progress against realistic, transparent milestones. Without their commitment, and without an ability to track progress against such milestones, it is simply not appropriate for us to continue to fund programs within their complex. My legislation supports the ongoing commercialization programs in their complex. In addition, however, it authorizes the federal government to contract for research in support of United States agencies in cases where the Russians have unique capabilities and facilities. My legislation demands that funding for this expanded program, for the 2002 fiscal year and beyond, be contingent on making significant measurable progress on key issues of strategic interest to both countries, including: Demonstrable conversion from military to civilian activities at the four cities participating in the FY 2001 program. Development of a ten year plan by the Russian Federation for a nuclear weapons complex downsized to reflect the changing national security needs of Russia. This plan should reflect a production capacity consistent with future arms control agreements. Increased transparency of Russian production capacity and nuclear materials inventories to eventually match that of the United States. In addition, my legislation authorizes funding for educational initiatives both in the United States and in the Former Soviet Union focused on developing new non-proliferation experts. There are now few people who can assist in these difficult downsizing processes while, at the same time, minimizing the threat presented by residual weapons material or expertise. Significant cooperation from the Russian government must occur for milestones to be set and met. That won't happen unless they concur that these steps are also in their best interests. From interactions with senior levels of their Ministry of Atomic Energy, I've learned that they share the view that progress in this area is in the best interests of both nations. It is certainly in our mutual interests to accomplish the transition of both nations' nuclear weapons complexes with as much care and as little proliferation risk as possible. It is also in each nation's interests for the other to maintain a sufficiently credible complex to support realistic national security objectives. To the extent that we can take these steps in a mutually transparent way, we should be able to assure each other of our future intentions. Mr. President, this legislation can significantly impact our non- proliferation and future arms control national security objectives.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield back his time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on our side, I do not intend to yield back time until Republican Senators have indicated to me they do not want any time. I do not know why we need a full hour and a half on our side, and I do not know why they need a full hour and a half plus 1 hour, which is 2\1/2\ hours on their side. I yield myself time off my hour and a half. I noted a minute ago that present on the floor was Senator Snowe. While I wish to discuss a number of issues, I want to say to her, and to those who supported her, that because of her diligence, this budget resolution has a reserve fund of $40 billion to be used for Medicare prescription drugs and Medicare reform. Frankly, I note that the House, at least on the majority side, is already discussing what they would do. Clearly, this $40 billion will go to the Finance Committee of the Senate because Senator Snowe, Senator Wyden, and Senator Smith in the committee worked very hard to get it done. I will say what has changed so I will not, in any way, overstate the case as to what Senator Wyden did. But essentially because of Olympia Snowe's dedication, we put $40 billion in a reserve fund. That means the Finance Committee can go to work on a bill, and the money is waiting for them to do a bill that meets the mandates or the qualifications of this reserve fund. We have, as she requested, up to $20 billion for prescription drugs and up to $20 billion for reforming the system so that it will do a better job and a more efficient job while we are adding some new benefits. I think everybody who has looked at it thinks that is what we ought the do. In committee, there was a mandatory date by which this had to be done. In conference with the House, that was refused. So we won half the battle. We got the $20 billion and the $20 billion, as I have described, which is $40 billion, but we did not get the mandatory date. We are going to have to rely upon the impetus that will accrue over the ensuing days because of the House action and the desire of this body to have our Finance Committee produce a bill. I have every confidence that they will. Having said that, I yield myself about 10 minutes to describe where we are. If, in fact, we adopt this budget resolution this evening, I say we are getting better all the time at getting our job done. The occupant of the Chair will be pleased to know we have had a Budget Act for a long time, since 1974. For all those years, if we produce this budget tonight, we will have produced three budget resolutions on time. That means April 15 had come and gone most years, and we could not get our job done because it was so contentious and so difficult. It will mean that 2 years in a row--last year and this year--for the first time in history, we adopted a budget resolution on time, by April 15. That speaks for itself. It means, however, that we can get started on the work that must be done to implement this work. We can get started sooner, earlier. With the hard work that is going to be done predominantly by the Appropriations Committees, and the Finance Committee in our body, we may very well get most of our work done in a very timely manner and be able to leave here before our respective conventions with the people's business having been accomplished. I think that would be a pretty good achievement. I will agree that it has been a very hard job. I will also indicate openly, it was very difficult for me. This work is about as difficult as any I have done in getting something accomplished. Again, it is partisan. We produced it with Republican votes. That is the way it normally is on a budget resolution. Then we will proceed to try to implement it. We will do our best. Let me summarize, so everybody will know what this resolution does. Then, in due course, we can hear from the other side as to what they think it does not do and what they would like to do. But I say to the Senate, I have seen an atmosphere that indicates the theory which I adopted--starting last year when we had a big surplus-- that we better take a little bit of this money and allocate it to the taxpayers is resonating every day, with more and more assurance that if we do not, there will not be any surplus. I know the occupant of the chair is a fiscally responsible person. He has his ideas. I see new bills being proposed because, indeed, we have a surplus. People have not done anything for 40 or 50 years, and they are introducing a bill that would cost anywhere from $2 to $5 billion, and all of a sudden it becomes expedient that we do it, and we must do it now. We hear about all kinds of new bills that are now big-need items in America. Let me suggest, for those who say it is too early to have tax relief, if we do not do it pretty soon, there will be no surplus left for the taxpayer. Our budget resolution says: If you can, Senate and House, produce some tax relief. It says if you cannot, all that money, over 5 years, goes to the debt, I say to my good friend, Senator Gorton. But let me suggest that we are right; we ought to put in money to have some tax relief. I will give you the paramount reason for that. On this floor, immediately prior to the consideration of this budget resolution conference report, what were we discussing? We were discussing the marriage tax penalty reform--meaning married couples in America, including the couples married this year, when they file that April 15 tax return early next week, they are going to be penalized, on average, $1,400 because they are married. Why should we wait around for another decade, when there are the kind of surpluses we have seen in this budget resolution, to provide tax relief for the American people? The Democrats have been arguing: The Republicans are going to enhance the rich of America with their tax bill. They are going to use this relief and give it all to the rich people. It should come as no surprise that 50 percent of the tax relief we are talking about--$64 billion; almost 50 percent--is going to go to cure the marriage tax penalty. There may be some who will get up and say that is helping the rich. But I am saying, it is something most Americans do not believe is American law. Most Americans say: Are you kidding? Are we punishing two people who are married, who work, who file joint returns? The answer is yes, and we want to fix it. For those who say wait until we fix Social Security, wait until we fix Medicare, wait until we fund all these programs we now see as desperately needed, wait until we fund the President's programs--I say to Senator Gorton, that is a 14-percent increase in domestic spending-- just fund it, there will not be any money for Social Security. If you do that 3 years in a row, there is no money for tax relief, and you are using the Social Security surplus, which is for 3 years of domestic funding at the level of the President. So what is risky? They say it is risky to have marriage tax penalty relief provided for in this bill. I say it is not risky; it is absolutely necessary. It is urgent. America must show we are concerned about married couples. There is a very longstanding belief in America and in the world, that we ought to try to promote family life, if we can, and married couples trying to struggle through it. It is not too early. It is the right time. But if we do not do it, I can see it coming between all the new needs that are going to be prescribed for this budget that we have not done in the past, that we are going to have to add to this huge Federal expenditure called the budget, and there will be nothing for marriage tax penalty relief or any kind of tax relief. So once again, this budget says, over 5 years, $150 billion can be used in tax relief. Right off the bat, when somebody on the other side says it is for the rich, I want everybody to understand almost half of it is for the marriage tax penalty reform. Second, we don't touch a nickel of Social Security. We have Senator Abraham's part of this resolution which for the next year says the lockbox applies and makes it part of the budget resolution that you need 60 votes to touch or use the Social Security surplus. Then to make it even more logical, we put $170 billion against the public debt this year, the biggest installment on the debt in the history of the Republic, $1 trillion over the next 5 years. This is an enormous payment on the debt. Nothing similar was ever assumed 5 years ago or 10 years ago or, I imagine, for the last three or four decades. In addition, because of Senator Snowe's initiative, we provide $40 billion on Medicare and prescription drugs. On the tax relief--just to show the equity of it all--we put $170 billion on the debt, and we have $13 billion in tax relief in the first year, between 12 and 13. The ratio is about 12 to 1, almost 13 to 1 of debt reduction versus tax relief. Over the 5 years, it is about 8 to 1 in debt reduction versus tax relief. That is pretty good fairness, since we are talking about tax fairness in this budget resolution. All spending will increase $212 billion over the next 5 years. That includes the $40 billion for prescription drugs. There will be NIH, science, funds for military, funds for health, funds for military retirees, veterans and other high-priority items. Frankly, I hope we pass this resolution and proceed to prove we tried to try to do this. We think this is the right budget for our time. If we don't hold down spending, except for high-priority items such as defense, education, science, NIH and the like, then the married couples of America can say goodbye to any tax relief as it might affect them and make their commitment to the institution of marriage and family life a little less difficult. After we have done marriage tax penalty relief, we will do something on the tax side for small business, which is the cornerstone of our great success in the last 6 years. We will talk about that later. With that, unless one of my Republican Senators wants part of my time, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I thank the Senate for its attention.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished ranking minority member would agree with me on a request. Senator Gorton is going to preside at 4 o'clock. He wonders, if he arrives on the floor 4 or 5 minutes before having to preside, if he could speak on my time for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes in rebuttal. Then I will be glad to yield time to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. First, let me explain what we have done on Medicare. Before any tax relief is provided in terms of dollar numbers, we have already used $40 billion of the non-Social Security surplus for Medicare. That is waiting for the committee, at which time it is assigned to them. We are not gambling. We are saying that is it. As a matter of fact, we are saying if you do not do it, it goes to the debt. What do we provide with the $40 billion? There is a little, tiny bit of difference between the way we and others see it. And we think there will be a majority for this view when the bill finally gets considered. We say there is $40 billion. We say if you do no reform of the program, there is $20 billion. Let me repeat that. If you do no reform, there is $20 billion for prescription drugs. If you do some reform to stabilize the program, you can use the whole $40 billion for prescription drugs. That is what Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine had as the underpinnings of her approach. She wanted some reform. But she wanted to make sure, even if we could not do that, we started a prescription drug program with $20 billion. If the committee does something like the Breaux-Frist--that is a bipartisan approach--with some reform in Medicare, you understand the Medicare program will be insolvent in about 13 years. I don't think seniors want us to add a benefit that will make it run out of money sooner. I think they would be asking us to see if we could fix it and make it more responsive, more modern, to give them more money for prescription drugs. Let me repeat that we are not taking this money from anyone. It is aside and apart from the tax relief we are asking for, such as the marriage tax penalty reform that the other side has been delaying here on the floor. We are saying $40 billion is set for Medicare, and it has two purposes. If you do not reform and make the program more modern so it has a chance of surviving longer, you can use $20 billion of it. It says so in the resolution for prescription drugs. But if you do something such as the Breaux-Frist reform, which is fixing the program, you can use the $40 billion of new money for prescription drugs. Frankly, I think it is a responsible way to handle a very difficult problem because if you do not ask for some reform to get the full $40 billion, we are going to have $40 billion, and the program next year is not going to be any better off. Then seniors are going to ask: Now what happens? We have prescription drugs, but we are still not going to have any money to pay our regular bills in about 13 years. I think we are pushing both at the same time. Let me make my last observation with reference to the difference between the two parties. All of them are going to vote against this. It really says you cannot pass the marriage tax penalty which is going to cost the Treasury about $64 billion over 5 years in the name of fairness to married couples. You can't pass that, they say, until you have done all of these other things that Government wants done for the Government. And there will never be a time when we are going to have a surplus to give to the hard-working people of this country, in particular, relief items such as the marriage tax penalty. There is not going to be any money around. Don't kid anyone. There is a very big difference. I ask that you take a visual inventory with me about the announcements of late by the administration, the Secretary of Energy, and many others: We have new programs on which we have to spend money. It isn't enough that the President already provided a 14-percent increase in domestic discretionary. There are all the new needs. What money will they use for the ``pay fors''? Does anybody have any idea? Is the money coming from heaven? New manna in the desert? Of course not. It will be the surplus we think ought to go back to the taxpayer in the form of tax relief after we spent money to increase government. We have money to increase government, but how much is enough? I think there is enough money available to leave a little bit. I rechecked my notes, and the tax relief in this first year is $11.6 billion; the debt reduction is $170 billion. How can anyone say we are not reducing the debt when that is the largest payment on the national debt in the history of the Republic? This resolution says: Don't touch Social Security. You will reduce it by $1 trillion--hardly a number we can understand--and still have a little bit left over for such things as tax relief for married couples in America. That is the big difference. They want to wait, we don't know how long, but perhaps until we solve every problem we have in government with reference to Medicare and everything else. Don't give the taxpayer back even this little tiny amount. I hope the Republicans will support this. I am very proud of the difference. They would not have put more than $40 billion in for Medicare if they were producing their own resolution. That is about the right number on which they could get consensus on their side of the aisle. They would not put 50 or 60 or 80. If you put 40 in, there is money left over for the taxpayer. That is the truth of the budget resolution. There will be a historic debate on education reform in a couple of weeks. I am very pleased to know we have probably had something to do with precipitating that reform debate. There is enough money to increase education. It is obvious to this Senator the Republicans are not going to go for an increase in education money if it is status quo for education, if we are going to do more of the same, because more of the same isn't good enough. We need to do something very different in education and spend more money doing it. We are going to have an opportunity to have that discussed. This conference report assumes $45.6 billion in 2001 for the Department of Education. That is overall, for everything--a $10 billion increase. Not exactly for what the President wants but overall in this function. That is what is provided. This is an election year. The administration and Secretary Richardson have the latest idea to take care of anyone who worked in a nuclear facility over the last 50 or 60 years. I know they are good sounding bills, but it is also an election year. I say to the taxpayer and to married couples of America, beware of an election year. In this country, an election year means they want to spend all your money and try to convince you that is right, leaving nothing to repair problems in tax law such as the marriage tax penalty. Beware. They will have more spending programs than you ever heard of, including a 14-percent increase in domestic discretionary spending by the President in his budget in an election year. The Republicans say: We want a change; we don't want the huge add-ons to government. We think in the scheme of things, over the next 5 years, the taxpayer ought to get a little bit of relief. That is the difference in the two bills. I think it is a good difference. When they say rich people are going to get the benefit of the tax relief on the marriage tax penalty, that is unfair. We want to fix it. How many want to do that? We win that. We have to use some of the surplus to pay for that kind of reform. That money doesn't grow on trees. That money has to come out of the coffers of the United States. It doesn't belong to the Government. I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Senator Gorton, and then I yield back to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator Boxer on the floor. I have 45 minutes remaining and I will take a few minutes to discuss Senator Kennedy's remarks. Mr. President, fellow Senators, nothing could be further from the truth than this budget resolution and this budget conference does not provide for Medicare prescription relief for senior citizens. Let me state what I think the triggering mechanism would have ultimately done. It would work in favor of those who don't want a bipartisan solution because they could have stonewalled this until the date arrived and then produce a partisan solution to Medicare on the floor of the Senate. But nobody should deny the work and the authenticity of what is in this budget resolution as suggested in our Budget Committee by the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe recognizes seniors don't want a prescription drug added to a Medicare program that is going bankrupt. We provide in this budget resolution if there is some reform in this program, $40 billion in new money can be used for prescription drugs. I don't want to let my voice grow any louder because I have on different occasions wondered whether talking extremely loud helps with one's case or not. I have no illusions but that I am speaking to myself and I will speak very moderately about this. The truth of the matter is, the Finance Committee of the Senate is challenged by this budget resolution to produce a bipartisan solution to the issue of prescription drugs. Some in this body do not want a bipartisan solution because it will have some of the good points of experts on our side about how to fix this, including the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, a Republican, and many others. Let me repeat, this budget resolution says whatever you do on taxes or tax relief, such as the marriage tax penalty, there is in addition to that, $40 billion for Medicare. That is $40 billion that can be used for prescription drugs. If the committee in charge of this wants to use it all for prescription drugs, they have to provide some reform to the system. Frankly, there is a big split over whether that is what the bill ought to do. But the Budget Committee opted, in this budget resolution, to try to be on the side of pursuing a bipartisan solution in the committee of jurisdiction, which has had 14 hearings, and is going to do something. The House is going its way. Before the year is out, we will have a bipartisan solution on this floor. That is precisely what would be good for seniors. We will take the politics out of Medicare, and we will put money into prescription drugs. That is really what we want to do in this budget resolution. Some may call it irresponsibility. I call it the height of responsibility. I believe to do otherwise is an invitation to election year politicking about Medicare prescription drugs that is, in the end, apt not to help with the Medicare program which everybody wants to try to fix and add prescription benefits. I want to repeat, the reason we have tax relief in this budget, and tell the committee to produce it, is the very issue we debated 4 hours ago on this floor called marriage tax penalty reform. It will cost, if we do it right, somewhere between $50 and $65 billion. Where will we get that relief for the millions of married couples? We will get it in this budget resolution and get $40 billion for Medicare, prescription drugs, and reform. If the seniors understand the two positions, they will say let's go try this; let's have Senators on that committee of finance, Democrat and Republican, working on a solution that belongs to everybody. It will probably be a right solution for the trust fund if it is a bipartisan solution. So I repeat, there is money for prescription drugs and there is money for tax relief, such as the marriage tax penalty reform that must be adopted. I reserve the remainder of the time I have on the resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Chair inform me how much time remains?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't intend to use the entire time I have. I would like to make sure I understand where they are going on the other side. If we are going to make an effort to vote earlier, I will be yielding back some of my time. I yield myself 6 minutes. First, let me identify the occupant of the chair. The occupant of the chair is one of our new Senators, Mr. Smith, from way over on the West Coast. I am very proud to have him in the Senate, but I am more proud that he is on the Budget Committee. There are people talking about what happens in this budget resolution, such as the distinguished Senator, Mrs. Murray, talking about a sense-of-the-Senate resolution as if it were binding on somebody. It is nothing more than what it says. It doesn't affect anything. To the extent we dropped some of her provisions, there were scores of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions in this budget that we did not take. What we did keep was something for which the distinguished occupant of the chair fought hard. I am told there are so many people watching C-SPAN. Sometimes I wonder how many times they want to hear the same speech, but I believe, when it is given again on that side, I have to say a few words. I repeat: Because of the distinguished Senator who occupies the chair, working in concert with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, helped by Senator Wyden from the same State as the occupant of the chair, we have a real provision we did not drop that has to do with Medicare prescription drugs and Medicare reform. I was so pleased to hear a freshman Senator, the occupant of the chair, say he wanted to support the Snowe amendment for $40 billion and that we might as well face up and get a bill. It says we can use the whole $40 billion for prescription drugs, and it is not crowded out by tax relief. It is separate and distinct; it is available. We have said if you do some reform to preserve the well-being of the Medicare system, you can have $40 billion in new money for prescription drugs. Now, if you choose to only do prescription drugs and do nothing to Medicare, it gets $20 billion to go ahead and add some prescription drugs. Frankly, I believe the Senator occupying the chair, Senator Smith of Oregon, was on the side of a very large majority of Senators. I think so long as we keep it bipartisan there is going to be an effort to repair the Medicare system for the senior citizens, which is going broke, and we can say we reformed it and modernized it and at the same time we have added $40 billion for prescription drugs. No matter how many times the other side repeats it--and I don't know that I am going to answer it again today--I will tell you what I know is in the budget resolution. If I had to read the words, you would see I am paraphrasing the words quite accurately. With reference to education, we can continue to hear specifics, that we didn't provide classroom teachers. Let me repeat, the only time we are going to find out what we really do for education is when the Appropriations Committee, headed by Senator Specter, produces an appropriations bill, because anything we say in this budget resolution about specifics on education are only assumptions. Many times, if not most of the time, the Appropriations Committee decides what they are going to spend on education, which programs they are going to fund, and whether it is going to be less children per classroom or more. That is not going to be decided by this resolution. What is going to be, or could be, decided is how much is available for education--not specifics but education. I say that this conference report assumes $45.6 billion in the year 2001 for the Department of Education--a $10 billion increase, or 30- percent increase, over last year's level. Over the next 5 years, most interestingly, assumptions on education are $21.9 billion in new money, additional money, which is essentially what the President asked for. Now, whatever they want to say in the next hour in repetition, I don't know that I will answer it again. I am trying my very best to say that these specific things Senators bring to the Senator floor and say there is a sense of the Senate on it and that would have gotten it done, I want to be kind; I don't want to say what I might say. But the fact that it is in, or not, doesn't mean very much. It is what the Appropriations Committee does with the money. Then there is going to be a bipartisan debate, for which I am grateful, on whether we should have the status quo on education programs or whether we should have reform. Essentially, for anybody interested in what is going to determine where we spend the money and how we spend it, it may be that we are going to leave all these categorical programs--money for more teachers and less students per classroom and all the other specifics that some people think are important--it may be that we will let the schools keep doing that. We are probably going to give them an option not to do that; in a way, that is more accommodating to them, with flexibility and accountability. That is essentially what we set up. We don't preclude that debate and its conclusions, which I understand from the majority leader will occur before this year is out. It is historical because it is coming out of committee of jurisdiction. It is not going to be done on the floor. It is headed by Senator Jeffords. Nobody thought there would be major reform. There is major reform, and it comes out to the floor to be debated. I don't know that I can do more on the issue of debt reduction other than to tell the Senate that this budget resolution has over $1 trillion in debt service over the next 5 years. It is most interesting that, all of a sudden, there is a difference between reducing the debt held by the public through Social Security surpluses and reducing it with other surpluses. Let me say, dollar for dollar, it is the same debt reduction, or reduction held by the public. It doesn't matter whether it comes out of the Social Security surplus that we don't spend or whether it comes out of the surplus that is on budget. We have a different way of accounting for them. We think there is a lot of money available during the next 5 years. In fact, we think over a freeze there is $400 billion in non-Social Security surplus. There is already a basic budget. Looking at this chart, we think it is $400 billion. Interestingly enough, that is over freezing everything. The Democrats assume what they call a freeze in real spending, that would bring the spending way up to here because they add inflation every year and call it automatic. It is not spending new money. We said let's start over. So we put $212 billion in domestic programs--domestic and defense. We put $150 billion in tax relief, which we ask today, how many more times do we have to hear that our tax proposals are for the rich? The biggest tax proposal is the marriage tax penalty. Is that what they are saying is a typical Republican effort to help the rich? I hope all the married people in America listen to that argument. In addition, we take that surplus and we put $40 billion of it in this non-Social Security on the debt. I don't believe the argument is about debt reduction. It may be today, but the argument is: Let's spend that tax relief money. Let's spend this. That is what the argument is about. I repeat, if we don't get tax relief, all this money, $150 billion, goes to debt reduction for the debt held by the public, adding to the $1 trillion I have just told you about that is in this. I will conclude by thanking the Budget Committee. The Republican majority produced this format. Obviously, from the newest Senator, to me as the most senior Senator on our side, we followed the lead of Olympia Snowe on Medicare and the leadership of my friend who is occupying the Chair, in getting a real Medicare proposal and that will drive a bipartisan solution. Let me repeat, in an election year, praise the Lord, if we can get a bipartisan solution to Medicare because it will be the right one if it turns out to be a partisan solution. I am afraid it will be a political solution, and I am not sure the Medicare trust fund for our seniors is going to come out very well. So that is why I think this is a good approach. My last observation is that the Appropriations Committee has to take all this money and decide what to do with it. Senator Ted Stevens is the chairman and that is his principal responsibility. I assure those who voted for this and who will vote for it today, it depends on how you allocate the money among priorities. But if they happen to be priorities we have been expressing today and that we expressed in this resolution, there will be plenty of funding for education, plenty of funding for the National Institutes of Health, plenty of funding for Medicare--and that is not an appropriated account--and we will have plenty of money to prepare our defense for this new 100 years we are entering where we need to make up some lost ground. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey came to this committee, I do not know if he was like me, but I never thought I would be ranking member, much less chairman. I am not sure he had a plan to be ranking member, especially when he had to put up with me. It has been not only a joy, in terms of getting our committee work done, but it has been healthy from the standpoint of adversaries who believe strongly about their position but understand the other fellow can have a different opinion and it is all right, they are OK. That is how I feel about him. He has different views than I, but he brought a lot of stability to this committee. The minority ought to be very grateful for the way he handled matters. They all had a chance to contribute. Today is his last effort on the floor of the Senate as ranking member. I thank him. I hope the whole Senate understands what he has done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the marriage penalty is the extra tax a couple pays as a result of being married. When a couple says ``I do'' they are really saying ``IRS, we will pay.'' The tax code has 63 provisions that penalize couples for being married. There are more than 20 income phase-outs and each is a marriage penalty. The two biggest marriage penalizers are the standard deduction and the tax brackets. Fairness would dictate that the standard deduction for a couple should be twice what it is for a single taxpayer. Fairness would dictate that the tax bracket income cut-off points for a married couple should be twice that of a single taxpayer. That is not the way the current code is structured. This bill would restore fairness. About 25 million married couples annually are adversely affected by the marriage penalty. Average marriage penalty is $1,400. If we eliminated the marriage penalty, the typical family would have an extra $1,400 to pay the electric bill for nine months, pay for three months of day care, pay for a five-day vacation at Disneyland or eat out 35 times. There wasn't always a marriage penalty. Prior to 1948 the tax code taxed individuals, but today, the marriage penalty has infiltrated the entire tax code. It didn't matter when most women stayed at home, but now that so many women work it is indefensible to have the marriage penalty in our law. A working wife often works to support the federal government, more than she works to help her family, because the first dollar she earns is taxed at the highest rate her husband's income is taxed. Some economists call this the ``second earner bias'' because the income of the secondary earner is stacked on top of the primary earner's income resulting in a relatively high marginal rate. Of the 27 OECD countries 19 countries taxed husbands and wives separately so there is no marriage penalty. The biggest culprits are the standard deduction and the tax brackets. The standard deduction for two individuals filing single returns is not twice what the standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint return is. It isn't but, it should be. Marriage penalty hits low income workers. Eligibility for the earned income credit is the same for single heads of households and married couples. Combining two incomes on a joint return may push a couple into the phase-out range of the EIC and reduce the size of their credit. As I mentioned, a growing number of tax provisions--credits and deductions--are phased-out at certain income ranges. Any tax provision that has an income phase-out contributes to the marriage penalty. Few of us probably ever stop to think about the marriage penalty when we vote for tax provisions with income phase-outs. Some phase-outs start as low as $10,000 of income. The dependent credit, the elderly credit and earned income credit have phase out ranges that compound the marriage penalty for the working poor. Several provisions have phase-outs in the $50,000 to $75,000 in income range which add to the marriage penalty of the two income middle class families. The dependent credit, the Hope education credit, the elderly credit, adoption credit; the IRA deduction and the Education loan interest expense deductions. Itemized deduction threshold, personal exemption, all get ``marriage penalty-ed'' out of existence for many married couples with modest incomes. S. 2346 provides total tax relief to married couples of $64 billion over the next five years. Combined with the other tax relief measures adopted by the Senate this year--tax relief for small employers (H.R. 833), improved health care access (H.R. 2990), and education savings accounts (S. 1134)--the total relief considered by the Senate falls well within the $150 billion budgeted for tax cuts in the recently-adopted Senate budget resolution. Let me describe in particularity the provisions of the bill. Standard deduction: The bill increases the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice the standard deduction for single taxpayers. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this provision provides tax relief to approximately 25 million couples filing joint returns. It is effective for taxable years after December 31, 2000. Increased brackets: The bill expands, over a six-year period, the 15- percent and 28-percent income tax brackets for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding brackets for an individual relief to 21 million married couples, including 3 million senior citizens. EIC: The bill increases the beginning and the end of the phase-out of the Earned Income Credit for couples filing a joint return. Currently, for a couple with two or more children, the EIC begins phasing out at $12,690 and is eliminated for couples earning more than $31,152. Under this bill, the new range would be $2,500 higher. For these couples eligible for the EIC, the maximum credit is increased by $526, from $3,888 to $4,414. It is effective for taxable years after December 31, 2000. AMT relief: The bill permanently extends the current temporary exemption from the individual alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for several family-related tax credits, including the $500 per child tax credit, HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits, and dependent care credit. The bill also exempts two refundable credits, the Earned Income Credit and the refundable child credit, from being reduced by the AMT. It is effective for taxable years after December 31, 2000. Mr. President, this bill addresses one of the biggest federal income tax injustices and I hope the Congress will enact this legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Palace of the Governors Annex Act has passed the Senate. In conjunction with Hispanic Heritage Month, I introduced the Palace of the Governors Expansion Act last October. The palace is a symbol of Hispanic influence in the United States and truly shows the coming together of many cultures in the New World--the various native American, Hispanic, and Anglo peoples who have lived in the region for over four centuries. Since introducing this bill last October, the situation has become an emergency. Walls are crumbling, water pipes are leaking, plumbing is backing up threatening priceless documents. The bill would authorize the construction of the Palace of the Governors' Annex. It would preserve a priceless collection of Spanish colonial, Iberian colonial paintings, artifacts, maps, books, guns, costumes, photographs. The collection includes such historically unique items as the helmets and armor worn by the Don Juan Onate expedition conquistadors who established the first capital in the United States, San Juan de los Caballeros, in July 1598. It includes the Vara Stick, a type of yardstick used to measure land grants and other real property boundaries in Dona Ana County, NM. We have all heard of Geronimo. The collection includes a rifle dropped by one of his men during a raid in the Black Range area of western New Mexico. We have all heard of Pancho Villa. His activities in the Southwest come alive when viewing some of the artifacts included in the Palace of the Governors Collection. The Columbus, NM, railway station clock was shot in the pendulum, freezing for all history the moment that Pancho Villa's raid and invasion began. It is part of the collection, but you wouldn't know it because there is no room to display it. Brig. Gen. Stephen Watts Kearny was posted to New Mexico during the Mexican War. He commanded the Army of the West as they traveled from the Santa Fe Trail to occupy the territories of New Mexico and California. As Kearny traveled, he carried a field desk which he used to write letters, diaries, orders, and other historical documents. It is part of the collection, but you can't see it because there is no display space for it in the Palace of the Governors. Many of us have read books by D.H. Lawrence, but none of us has seen the note from his mother that is part of the collection. There are more than 800,000 other historic photographs, guns, costumes, maps, books, and handicrafts. Where are these treasures that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to make part of the Smithsonian housed now? Where is this collection designated as a National Treasure by the National Trust for Historic Preservation kept? In the basement of a 400-year-old building. It is a national travesty. This legislation would right this wrong by authorizing funds for a Palace of the Governors Expansion Annex. The entire project will cost $32 million. The legislation authorizes a $15 million federal grant if the museum can match the grant on a 50-50 basis. The Palace of the Governors has acquired a half block behind the current palace. Obtaining this valuable real estate is evidence of the ingenuity and commitment of those involved in preserving the collection. Real estate near Santa Fe's plaza is seldom for sale at any price, much less an affordable price. The Palace of the Governors has been the center of administrative and cultural activity over a vast region in the Southwest since its construction as New Mexico's second capitol by Governor Pedro de Peralta in 1610. The building is the oldest continuously occupied public building in the United States. Since its creation, the Museum of New Mexico has worked to protect and promote Hispanic, Southwest, and native American arts and crafts. I hope the House will act expeditiously on this legislation to save this important collection.