Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask whether the full faith and credit of the United States will stand behind the guarantees to be executed by the Loan Guarantee Boards. This is of course an important matter for prospective lenders, determining perhaps at what interest rates a guaranteed loan would be made, or indeed whether a loan would be made at all. Am I correct in my assumption that although the bill does not specifically say so in so many words, the full faith and credit of the United States will in fact stand behind the loan guarantees?

Mr. DOMENICI. I note that the legislation in section 101 (j), appropriates $5 million to the Department of Commerce, for necessary expenses to administer the Steel Loan Guarantee Program. Similarly, in section 201 (i), $2.5 million is appropriated to the Department for necessary expenses to administer the Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Program. In each case, the legislation provides that the appropriation, ``may be transferred to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of the International Trade Administration.'' The operative word here is ``may.'' Do I correctly assume that the Secretary of Commerce has the discretion to determine where funds provided for under these programs can be most effectively administered?

Mr. DOMENICI. Many qualified steel companies are currently in bankruptcy, or have existing debt with covenants in those investments that provide for seniority for such existing debentures. In determining loan security, is it not the intent of this legislation to give the Board the discretion to use its professional judgment to determine the nature, kind, quality and amount of security required for a loan guarantee?

Mr. DOMENICI. I note that the legislation requires the Loan Guarantee Boards to establish procedures, rules and regulations, but appropriates money to the Department of Commerce to administer the programs. Am I correct in assuming that this is because the Boards themselves are not expected to actually administer the programs, but only to adopt rules and procedures, and approve guarantees and amendments? And am I correct in further assuming that, subject to the direction of the Loan Guarantee Boards, the Department of Commerce is expected to prepare proposed rules and procedures for the Boards' consideration; on behalf of the Boards, publish regulations in the Federal Register; process applications for guarantees; and undertake the day-to-day administration of the programs?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my friend, the chairman. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I want to talk for 10 minutes about why this is a good deal for the American people and why it is high time we set in motion a series of tax cuts which will give them back the money they are paying into the Government that we don't need. First of all, everybody talks about the fact that tax reduction comes in over a decade, and it comes in 1 year at a time. Almost everybody who is critical of that says at the same time they want to save Social Security. The truth of the matter is there is $3.3 trillion in accumulated surpluses over the next decade. In order to make sure you are protecting Social Security, each and every year of that 10 years, a substantial portion of that money belongs to the Social Security trust fund. So you can't have tax cuts that use up the Social Security trust fund. Anybody who says we are is ignoring the facts. The reason we have to have a phased in tax cut is because we are saving every single penny that belongs to Social Security for Social Security. Then we come along and say, let's have a tax cut, and let's phase it in each and every year. People can come to the floor and be critical of how slow it is and how long it takes to get the marriage tax penalty totally eliminated. But the truth of the matter is when you pass this tax bill tonight, and if the President were to sign it, you have put into law a change in the Tax Code which will get rid of the marriage tax penalty and many of the other onerous provisions in this law. Still, after you have done that, even though some of our best money crunchers in America have it wrong, there is $505 billion--not zero, as some people have said, $505 billion--off a freeze which you can spend where you want over the next decade, be it for defense, be it for discretionary programs such as education, or you can use $90 billion to $100 billion of it, or as much as you want, to make sure you fix Medicare, if that is your goal. So for starters, there are so many people out there with wrong numbers and attacks on this proposal, who have the wrong facts, that I merely want to answer that part. We take care of Social Security regardless of what the President of the United States says. There is money in this budget for Medicare reform, if you choose to do it. There is money in this budget plan to pay for defense and to pay for education, and other high priority items, and to take care of the needs of this country. What we set out to do was to say we shouldn't keep more than we need, and we shouldn't set billions of dollars around in places up here in the National Government assuming that one way or another it will be there when it is time to give a tax cut. I submit that if you believe that you really do believe in the tooth fairy because, as a matter of fact, if you set that much money around up here and it is not used, it will be spent. We ask the question: Do you want to use this surplus to grow the pocketbooks of Americans, or do you want to increase their savings accounts, or would you like to spend it? That is the issue before us today. It is a blessing that we have this surplus. First, we should set aside enough for Social Security. We have done that. The bill then provides for our taxpayers to get some relief. It preserves and expands the child care credit. It protects various education credits, foster care tax credit, the alternative minimum tax--a fancy name. But what it means is that the way the Tax Code is written today, we give average Americans, middle-income Americans, credits and the like in the Tax Code. Then we take it away under the alternative minimum tax--like we give you a benefit and we take it away. We call it an alternative minimum tax, as if you are so rich you shouldn't get these credits. Do you know that if we do not pass this tax bill, 7 out of 10 American taxpayers will lose some of their credits to the AMT by the year 2008, just about the time that we wiped out the AMT? Please, Mr. President, sign this bill. The bill provides tax relief for health care, long-term care, and has small business incentives. It is a bill that is good for farmers, for working men and women, and families. Overall, it is a very good bill. I also say, Mr. President, please sign this bill. The final tax plan is an excellent tax plan that moves toward slower, flatter, and simpler tax and moves toward taxing income that is consumed, not income that is saved, earned, and invested. On the business side, it moves closer to allowing business to deduct the cost of investments in the year they are made, thereby making them more competitive. This bill overall moves toward tax equity so everyone will get a break for health care regardless of where they work--a big company, small company, or a ma-and-pa one-stop shop. People who need health coverage say: Mr. President, please sign this bill. The bill focuses on generational equity. There are child care credits and long-term credits for the elderly. The President asks, be sure to take care of our senior citizens. We have taken care of them. Senior citizens, we are taking care of your children and your grandchildren who are interested in being helped because they pay more taxes than they should. On behalf of the seniors in the country, and their daughters, sons, and grandchildren, Mr. President, sign this bill. The bill takes the best part of the House and Senate bill and attempts to make it law. Broad-based tax reduction is fair. It cuts the tax rate in the lowest bracket first. Lowering of the 15-percent bracket happens before any other brackets are lowered. This sequencing recognizes that 98 million Americans are the people most urgently in need of a tax cut. Lowering the 15 percent to 14 percent is a 7-percent cut. Widening the lower bracket does two important things: It returns millions of Americans to the lowest brackets, fighting back ``bracket creep.'' In my own State of New Mexico, 151,000 New Mexicans will be returned to the lowest bracket; another 83,000 will see taxes cut. Talking about the marriage penalty for a minute, which everybody has spoken to--I won't be as eloquent as some--it is absolutely preposterous that the United States of America would punish by way of taxation a man and a woman who are married and both working, as opposed to a man and woman who are single. The marriage penalty is the wrong thing for America today. It was the wrong thing when we passed it. We ought to get rid of it. In behalf of millions of married couples who are begging Congress to be fair with them and get rid of this penalty on their marriage, please sign this tax bill. Because of the progressive rate structure in our tax code, Americans in the 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 tax brackets will all see their taxes cut. The marriage penalty relief in this bill is overdue and well done. There is roughly $117 billion in marriage penalty relief. Fully fifty percent of the bills resources go to a broad-based and marriage-penalty tax relief. The bill also phases in a doubling of the standard deduction to finally eliminate the marriage penalty. In addition to lowering federal income taxes by eliminating the marriage penalty for 567,170 New Mexico families, it will also save New Mexicans $72.4 million in New Mexico income taxes as well! Getting married would no longer be a taxable event. The bill increases the child care credit. It increases the credit for families with AGI incomes under $30,000. By 2006, the credit will be 40 percent. This means that 29,042 New Mexican families will get more help with their child care expenses and this is a real helping hand because child care can cost as much as $3,133 to $5,200 a year per child. These 29,042 families with child care expenses say, ``Mr. President, please sign this bill.'' This bill improves tax treatment for education 7 ways. The 331,815 public school students in New Mexico would be benefitted if this bill were to become law, so I say, ``Mr. President, please sign this bill.'' This bill provides a deduction for prescription drug insurance, provides an extra exemption for the caretaker of elderly and infirm parents and grandparents, and provides a deduction for long term care insurance. 43 percent of all Americans will need long term care at some point in their lives and 25 percent of all families are caring for an elderly relative today. It is an emotional and financial commitment. The long term care deduction can help make it less of a financial burden. For the 19 million Americans expected to need long term care, I say, ``Mr. President, please, please sign this bill.'' This bill cuts taxes by $43.9 billion by providing tax relief to families facing health care costs. The bill expands the deduction for health insurance so that everyone is treated the same regardless of whether they work for a big corporation with a fancy health insurance benefit plan, or whether they work for a small business that does not provided health insurance. This provision could help 43 million uninsured plus the 10.2 million who have access to health insurance but decline to participate because of the cost and it should help the 1.4 million children of self-employed who lack health insurance. In New Mexico this provision could have a big impact and make a big difference. We have 340,000 uninsured New Mexicans who belong to families where some in the family works. On behalf of all these people with no health insurance or with unaffordable health insurance, I ask, ``Mr. President, please sign this bill.'' I have talked about why this bill is good for the American family. But there are two provisions that are good for the economy. Lowering the capital gains rate is the best economic policy and I am pleased that this bill lowers the top rate to 18 percent. I am also pleased that the bill increases expensing from $19,000 to $30,000. This bill also phases in a reduction of rates and then repeals the estate tax. The estate tax is perceived as one of the most confiscatory taxes of all time and it is one that disrupts small business and farms. I am pleased that the bill gets rid of the death tax. Dying should not be a taxable event. For all of the constituents who have written me about the unfairness of the death tax I say, ``Mr. President, please sign this bill.'' The bill increases the amount that can be contributed for all IRAs. It is phased in so that eventually $5,000 a year could be contributed. The bill also increases eligibility for those who can participate in Roth IRAs and includes ``catch-up'' contribution limits for people aged 50 and over. For the 15 million people who would be helped by these retirement security provisions, I say, ``Mr. President, please sign this bill.'' The bill also does some things that really need doing. First it extends the R&E credit for five years. It also includes some desperately needed tax relief for the oil and gas industry. I am very pleased with this bill. It is fair, it is the right thing to do and it should be done before the money get spent on more government. I close today by saying I have been working on budgets for a long time. I have heard criticisms of budgets that we produced, and we have criticized budgets that the opposite side produced. The criticism of this tax cut, phased in over 10 years, is beyond anything I could ever have imagined. With surpluses of this size, for the White House and those who oppose it to be inventing numbers and accusations that are totally unfounded is something I never expected. As a matter of fact, there is even concern about the moderate economic assumptions in this budget. We grew at 6 percent the year before last, 4\1/2\ percent last year, over 2 percent this year, and we plan the next decade to grow at 2 to 2.3 percent, a very modest growth. We even plan two recessions in there, and we still get these surpluses. Frankly, I think they are fair projections. At least they are fair enough to make sure we don't risk them being spent. All we are saying is, over the next decade set this much aside, just don't collect it. We are not going to cut taxes. We are just not going to collect it. It will stay with the American people. It is going to be phased in. Fellow Americans, it will take a while for some of them, but maybe we should ask the question for the other side and the White House who are critical that it takes too long for them to come in, When will their taxes come in? When will their tax reductions come? Perhaps never.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for S. 1292, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2000. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee, I appreciate the difficult task before the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Minority to balance the diverse priorities funded in this bill--from our public lands, to major Indian programs and agencies, energy conservation and research, and the Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done a masterful job meeting important program needs within existing spending caps. The pending bill provides $14.0 billion in new budget authority and $9.15 billion in new outlays to fund Department of Interior agencies, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Minerals Management Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the fossil energy and energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy, the Smithsonian, and federal arts and humanities agencies. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the bill totals $14.0 billion in budget authority and $14.3 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The Senate Subcommittee is $1 million in both budget authority and outlays below its revised 302(b) allocation. The bill is $35 million in BA above, and $104 million in outlays below, the bill recently passed by the House. The bill is $1.1 billion in BA and $0.7 billion in outlays below the President's budget request in large measure because the President's offsets to increased discretionary spending are not within the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I commend the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for bringing this important measure to the floor within the 302(b) allocation. I urge the adoption of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce the ``Public Health Response to Youth Suicide and Violence Act of 1999.'' I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for joining me as a co-sponsor of this legislation. All too often we read in the paper or see on TV another tragedy involving our children. These stories about violence, death, and suicide have become all too familiar and commonplace in our nation. Unfortunately, the children who commit these acts often suffer from a mental illness. As I have said many times before the human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as illnesses to our other organs require treatment, so too do illnesses of the brain. And while we have learned so much more about mental illness and medical science can accurately diagnosis mental illnesses and treat those afflicted, the same cannot be said for children and adolescents. Unfortunately, we still know very little about the causes of mental illness in children and adolescents and moreover, the appropriate treatment for these illnesses. Before I proceed there is one thing I want to make absolutely clear: I am not for one minute saying we should lessen our focus on law enforcement or incarceration of convicted offenders. Instead, I am simply saying we might be able to prevent some of the tragedies I have mentioned if we knew more about the cause and appropriate treatment for mental illness in children and adolescents. Today, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among individuals between the age of 15 to 24 and the 4th leading cause of death in those 10 to 14 years of age. Estimates show about 1 in 10 children and adolescents suffer from a mental illness that is severe enough to cause some level of impairment. Additionally, many parents with a child suffering from a serious mental disorder believe their child will become violent without appropriate treatment. Beyond the possibility of suicide and violence, children not receiving treatment for mental disorders not only suffer, cannot learn, and may not form healthy relationships with peers or family, but face an increased likelihood of incarceration as juveniles and adults. I have come to the conclusion that we must make a renewed investment into discovering the cause and the appropriate treatment of mental illness in children and adolescents. Why is it that certain children may be afflicted with a mental illness and others are not? What is the best course of treatment for a child diagnosed with a mental illness? Everyone acknowledges that there is a critical lack of information in the area of child and adolescent mental illnesses and in particular the causes and appropriate treatment of such illnesses. With this in mind, I cannot think of a better entity to take the lead in this endeavor to increase our research and understanding of child and adolescent mental illness than the National Institute of Mental Health. The Institute is already at the forefront of mental illness research and I believe it is uniquely qualified to address the connection between mental illness and youth suicide and violence. The ``Public Health Response to Youth Suicide and Violence Act of 1999'' simply seeks to reduce incidences of youth suicide and violence through increased research by the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) of children and adolescents suffering from depression or other mental illness. By providing for increased research the Bill addresses a critical lack of knowledge in the area of child and adolescent mental illnesses and in particular the causes and appropriate treatment of such illnesses that often lead to youth suicide and violence. The Bill authorizes $200 million for FY 2000 to expand and intensify research aimed at better understanding the underlying causes of mental disorders that lead to youth suicide and violence. The Bill contains mandatory activities to be carried out by the Director of NIMH that include developing researchers who are trained in the area of childhood mental disorders in order to better understand the development of brain and mental disorders in children, pursue research into the relationship between mental disorders and youth violence and suicide and to develop effective treatments for these disorders. Additionally, the Director of NIMH will work with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to develop a model to train primary care physicians, nurses, school psychologists, teachers, and other responsible individuals about mental disorders in children. The Bill also contains permissible activities the Director of NIMH may carry out that include examining the potential of public health programs that combine individual, family, and community level interventions to address suicide and violence and to identify related best practices. Additionally, the Director may develop and evaluate programs aimed at prevention, early recognition, and intervention of depression, youth suicide, and violence in diverse school and community settings. In conclusion, I would simply restate that I believe expanding research to reduce incidences of youth suicide and violence through increased research of children and adolescents suffering from depression or other mental illness is necessary and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of this important bill to make some much needed changes to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I am pleased to join my colleagues, including the chairmen of the Senate Judiciary and Indian Affairs Committees, in support of this legislation. Mr. President, my home state of New Mexico is the birthplace of the atomic bomb. New Mexico's national laboratories have long been involved in developing and testing nuclear weapons. One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid development of its nuclear arsenal was that many of those who worked in the earliest uranium mines, prior to the implementation of government health and safety standards in 1971, became afflicted with terrible illnesses. I began to notice this problem more than 20 years ago, when I learned that miners had contracted an alarmingly high rate of lung cancer and other diseases commonly related to radiation exposure. Many of the miners native Americans, mostly members of the Navajo Nation, with whom the U.S. Government has had a longstanding trust relationship based on the treaties and agreements between our country and the tribes. Some 1,500 Navajos worked in the uranium mines from 1947 to 1971. Many of them have since died of radiation-related illnesses. All of the uranium miners, including the Navajos, performed a great service out of patriotic duty to this country. Their work helped us to win the cold war. Unfortunately, our Nation failed to fulfill its duty to protect the miners' health and some 20 years ago, I began the effort to see that the miners and their families received just compensation for their illnesses. In 1978, in the 95th Congress, I introduced the first bill to compensate uranium miners who contracted radiation-related diseases. The bill was called the Uranium Miners Compensation Act, and it was the predecessor to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) which is law today. The following year in 1979, I held the first field hearing on this issue in Grants, NM, to learn about the concerns and the health problems faced by uranium miners. In later years, I traveled to Shiprock, NM, and the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation to gather more information about the uranium mines and their families. Twelve years after I introduced that first bill, President Bush signed RECA into law. At the time, RECA was intended to provide fair and swift compensation for those miners and downwinders who had contracted certain radiation-related illnesses. Since the RECA trust fund began making awards in 1992, the Department of Justice has approved a total 3,135 claims valued at nearly $232 million. In my home state of New Mexico, there have been 371 claims approved with a value of nearly $37 million. For that work, the Department of Justice is to be commended. The original RECA was a compassionate law which unfortunately has come to be administered in a bureaucratic, dispassionate and often unfair manner. Many claims have languished at the Department of Justice for far too long. Miners and their families, particularly Navajos, often have waited many years for their claims to be processed. Many claims were denied because the miners were smokers and could not prove that their diseases were related solely to uranium mining. In other cases, miners faced problems establishing the requisite amount of working level months needed to make a successful claim. Native American claims by spousal survivors often were denied because of difficulties associated with documenting native American marriages. This bill makes some important, common sense changes to the radiation compensation program to address the problems I have outlined. First, it expands the list of compensable diseases to include new cancers, including leukemia, thyroid, and brain cancer. It also includes certain noncancer diseases, including pulmonary fibrosis. Medical science has been able to link these diseases to uranium mining in the 10 years since the enactment of the original RECA. We now know that prolonged radiation exposure can cause many additional diseases. This bill uses the best available science to make sure that those who were injured by radiation exposure are compensated. The bill also extends eligibility to above-ground and open-pit miners, millers and transport workers. The latest science tells us that the risks of disease associated with radiation exposure were not necessarily limited to those who worked in unventilated mines. Most importantly, the bill requires the Department of Justice to take native American law and customs into account when deciding claims. I have heard countless stories about the inequities faced by the spouses of Navajo miners who have been unable to successfully document their traditional tribal marriages to the satisfaction of the Justice Department under current law and regulations. This bill will change that, and make it easier for spousal survivors to make successful claims. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this important legislation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost close to $1 billion over the next 21 years. That is far less than some of the other proposals floated in the House and Senate during the past few years. This is a commonsense approach, which addresses many of the problems with the existing program, without unnecessarily expanding the scope of the Radiation Exposure compensation Act. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has done a fine job crafting this bill and I have been pleased to work with him in that regard. I look forward to helping move this bill through the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Hatch in introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999.'' I am convinced that this bill is urgently needed to assure our senior citizens have access to quality nursing home care through the Medicare program. We can all take a certain amount of pride in the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which contained the most sweeping reforms for Medicare since the program was enacted in 1965. These reforms have extended the solvency of the program to 2015 and brought new health coverage options to seniors throughout the country. However, it should come as no surprise that legislation as complex as the Balanced Budget Act (BBA), as well as its implementation by the Health Care Financing Administration, has produced some unintended consequences that need to be corrected. That is exactly the situation in the case of nursing homes. The transition to the Prospective Payment System (PPS) for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) that was contained in the BBA is seriously threatening access to needed care for seniors all across the country. In May, 63 Senators joined with me in sending a bipartisan appeal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services urging her to address the growing crisis in the nursing home industry through administrative action. To date, we have received no direct response from the Secretary on this matter, nor has the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) shown any willingness to address the problem. With time quickly running out on many nursing home operators, I believe Congress must act before it is too late to assure our seniors will continue to have access to quality nursing home care. Let me note that Congress is not alone in believing there is a problem here. Dr. Gail Wilensky, the Chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee that some Medicare patients are having difficulty accessing care in skilled nursing facilities. Dr. Wilensky went on to say that the current reimbursement system adopted by HCFA does not adequately account for patients requiring high levels of nontherapy ancillary services and supplies. In New Mexico, there are currently 81 nursing homes in the state serving about 6,000 patients, and I am convinced that the current Medicare payment system, as implemented by HCFA, simply does not provide enough funds to cover the costs being incurred by these facilities when they care for our senior citizens. For rural states like New Mexico, corrective action is critically important. Many communities in my state are served by a single facility that is the only provider for many miles. If such a facility were to close, patients in that home would be forced to move to facilities much farther away from their families. Moreover, nursing homes in smaller, rural communities often operate on a razor thin bottom line, and, for them, the reductions in Medicare reimbursements have been especially devastating. The legislation we are introducing today would go a long way toward restoring stability in the nursing home industry. It would increase reimbursement rates through two provisions. First, a 2-year period, the bill modestly increases payments for 15 high acuity conditions, like cancer, hip fracture, and stroke. At the end of 2 years, HCFA expects that they will have the data to more properly reflect the high costs of these cases in the payment system. Second, the bill eliminates the one percentage point reduction in the annual inflation update for all reimbursement rates for skilled nursing facilities. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and the other cosponsors of this bill in pushing for passage of this critical legislation when we return in September.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to introduce the ``Public Health Response to Youth Suicide and Violence Act of 1999.'' I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for joining me as a co-sponsor of this legislation. All too often we read in the paper or see on TV another tragedy involving our children. These stories about violence, death, and suicide have become all too familiar and commonplace in our nation. Unfortunately, the children who commit these acts often suffer from a mental illness. As I have said many times before the human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as illnesses to our other organs require treatment, so too do illnesses of the brain. And while we have learned so much more about mental illness and medical science can accurately diagnosis mental illnesses and treat those afflicted, the same cannot be said for children and adolescents. Unfortunately, we still know very little about the causes of mental illness in children and adolescents and moreover, the appropriate treatment for these illnesses. Before I proceed there is one thing I want to make absolutely clear: I am not for one minute saying we should lessen our focus on law enforcement or incarceration of convicted offenders. Instead, I am simply saying we might be able to prevent some of the tragedies I have mentioned if we knew more about the cause and appropriate treatment for mental illness in children and adolescents. Today, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among individuals between the age of 15 to 24 and the 4th leading cause of death in those 10 to 14 years of age. Estimates show about 1 in 10 children and adolescents suffer from a mental illness that is severe enough to cause some level of impairment. Additionally, many parents with a child suffering from a serious mental disorder believe their child will become violent without appropriate treatment. Beyond the possibility of suicide and violence, children not receiving treatment for mental disorders not only suffer, cannot learn, and may not form healthy relationships with peers or family, but face an increased likelihood of incarceration as juveniles and adults. I have come to the conclusion that we must make a renewed investment into discovering the cause and the appropriate treatment of mental illness in children and adolescents. Why is it that certain children may be afflicted with a mental illness and others are not? What is the best course of treatment for a child diagnosed with a mental illness? Everyone acknowledges that there is a critical lack of information in the area of child and adolescent mental illnesses and in particular the causes and appropriate treatment of such illnesses. With this in mind, I cannot think of a better entity to take the lead in this endeavor to increase our research and understanding of child and adolescent mental illness than the National Institute of Mental Health. The Institute is already at the forefront of mental illness research and I believe it is uniquely qualified to address the connection between mental illness and youth suicide and violence. The ``Public Health Response to Youth Suicide and Violence Act of 1999'' simply seeks to reduce incidences of youth suicide and violence through increased research by the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) of children and adolescents suffering from depression or other mental illness. By providing for increased research the Bill addresses a critical lack of knowledge in the area of child and adolescent mental illnesses and in particular the causes and appropriate treatment of such illnesses that often lead to youth suicide and violence. The Bill authorizes $200 million for FY 2000 to expand and intensify research aimed at better understanding the underlying causes of mental disorders that lead to youth suicide and violence. The Bill contains mandatory activities to be carried out by the Director of NIMH that include developing researchers who are trained in the area of childhood mental disorders in order to better understand the development of brain and mental disorders in children, pursue research into the relationship between mental disorders and youth violence and suicide and to develop effective treatments for these disorders. Additionally, the Director of NIMH will work with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to develop a model to train primary care physicians, nurses, school psychologists, teachers, and other responsible individuals about mental disorders in children. The Bill also contains permissible activities the Director of NIMH may carry out that include examining the potential of public health programs that combine individual, family, and community level interventions to address suicide and violence and to identify related best practices. Additionally, the Director may develop and evaluate programs aimed at prevention, early recognition, and intervention of depression, youth suicide, and violence in diverse school and community settings. In conclusion, I would simply restate that I believe expanding research to reduce incidences of youth suicide and violence through increased research of children and adolescents suffering from depression or other mental illness is necessary and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of this important bill to make some much needed changes to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I am pleased to join my colleagues, including the chairmen of the Senate Judiciary and Indian Affairs Committees, in support of this legislation. Mr. President, my home state of New Mexico is the birthplace of the atomic bomb. New Mexico's national laboratories have long been involved in developing and testing nuclear weapons. One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid development of its nuclear arsenal was that many of those who worked in the earliest uranium mines, prior to the implementation of government health and safety standards in 1971, became afflicted with terrible illnesses. I began to notice this problem more than 20 years ago, when I learned that miners had contracted an alarmingly high rate of lung cancer and other diseases commonly related to radiation exposure. Many of the miners native Americans, mostly members of the Navajo Nation, with whom the U.S. Government has had a longstanding trust relationship based on the treaties and agreements between our country and the tribes. Some 1,500 Navajos worked in the uranium mines from 1947 to 1971. Many of them have since died of radiation-related illnesses. All of the uranium miners, including the Navajos, performed a great service out of patriotic duty to this country. Their work helped us to win the cold war. Unfortunately, our Nation failed to fulfill its duty to protect the miners' health and some 20 years ago, I began the effort to see that the miners and their families received just compensation for their illnesses. In 1978, in the 95th Congress, I introduced the first bill to compensate uranium miners who contracted radiation-related diseases. The bill was called the Uranium Miners Compensation Act, and it was the predecessor to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) which is law today. The following year in 1979, I held the first field hearing on this issue in Grants, NM, to learn about the concerns and the health problems faced by uranium miners. In later years, I traveled to Shiprock, NM, and the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation to gather more information about the uranium mines and their families. Twelve years after I introduced that first bill, President Bush signed RECA into law. At the time, RECA was intended to provide fair and swift compensation for those miners and downwinders who had contracted certain radiation-related illnesses. Since the RECA trust fund began making awards in 1992, the Department of Justice has approved a total 3,135 claims valued at nearly $232 million. In my home state of New Mexico, there have been 371 claims approved with a value of nearly $37 million. For that work, the Department of Justice is to be commended. The original RECA was a compassionate law which unfortunately has come to be administered in a bureaucratic, dispassionate and often unfair manner. Many claims have languished at the Department of Justice for far too long. Miners and their families, particularly Navajos, often have waited many years for their claims to be processed. Many claims were denied because the miners were smokers and could not prove that their diseases were related solely to uranium mining. In other cases, miners faced problems establishing the requisite amount of working level months needed to make a successful claim. Native American claims by spousal survivors often were denied because of difficulties associated with documenting native American marriages. This bill makes some important, common sense changes to the radiation compensation program to address the problems I have outlined. First, it expands the list of compensable diseases to include new cancers, including leukemia, thyroid, and brain cancer. It also includes certain noncancer diseases, including pulmonary fibrosis. Medical science has been able to link these diseases to uranium mining in the 10 years since the enactment of the original RECA. We now know that prolonged radiation exposure can cause many additional diseases. This bill uses the best available science to make sure that those who were injured by radiation exposure are compensated. The bill also extends eligibility to above-ground and open-pit miners, millers and transport workers. The latest science tells us that the risks of disease associated with radiation exposure were not necessarily limited to those who worked in unventilated mines. Most importantly, the bill requires the Department of Justice to take native American law and customs into account when deciding claims. I have heard countless stories about the inequities faced by the spouses of Navajo miners who have been unable to successfully document their traditional tribal marriages to the satisfaction of the Justice Department under current law and regulations. This bill will change that, and make it easier for spousal survivors to make successful claims. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this important legislation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost close to $1 billion over the next 21 years. That is far less than some of the other proposals floated in the House and Senate during the past few years. This is a commonsense approach, which addresses many of the problems with the existing program, without unnecessarily expanding the scope of the Radiation Exposure compensation Act. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has done a fine job crafting this bill and I have been pleased to work with him in that regard. I look forward to helping move this bill through the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am finished. But I would be glad to answer a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. All I know is that I mentioned two chairmen. I mentioned the esteemed chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee on clean air. I don't know the makeup of the public works committee. I served on it for 12 years. I think it is a wonderful committee. But to be honest with you, I am thrilled it is your job and not mine. I say to the chairman that I could have been chairman. I am glad he is chairman and that I am not. But what I said tonight I believe is true; that is, we ought to tell the committee to do their job and do it quickly. That ought to be the vote tonight.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't address these remarks to any exporter of ethanol. But I am really astounded tonight. I think if you pull out your ledger, every time we have an ethanol vote, my friend or someone else is standing there to make sure that I vote for it and make sure that I vote the same way over and over. Frankly, I wouldn't be voting for ethanol if I had to put up with this kind of argument and justification for being for ethanol. Just put that in your hat. Because this is an absurd argument. Most of those who support ethanol on this side of the aisle are constantly arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency oversteps all the time--that they overregulate, that they do things that cost the American taxpayers too much. And yet they come here tonight. There is the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Is this man antienvironment? For most of the same people, they have been arguing that he is too much in favor of the environment. He comes to the floor of the Senate a reputed chairman, and you all make this an environmental issue? You want to make this issue one that says we will sell more corn. I don't believe that is the right way to handle environmental issues in the United States when a blue-ribbon commission issued a report, and the chairman of the committee says: I need time to study it. But it will just be a matter of a few weeks, and we will have a hearing. That is what we should do tonight. We should say to that committee: Do your hearings quickly and give us your recommendation. But to stand here on the floor of the Senate and make this a corn- growers versus a non-corn-growers issue, and try to say it is the environment when you are counting heads, to every head you are counting, you are sending a memo: This is for corn. Is that why we want you to vote for it? Right. In fact, my friend, who I greatly respect, tried to cover that up in a 15-minute speech about it being something else. But it is an effort to say let us get rid of this thing that we are using to make our gasoline better, more oxygenated, and better for the clean air of our country when there is a study that is only 5 days old--6 days, whatever it is. You have the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee saying: Wouldn't you give us time to look at it? Here we have an agriculture bill and somebody making an issue that now what you would do is make Pete Domenici tonight, who is not going to vote with you anti-corn growers, says listen, corn growers. You are more apt to make me an anti-corn grower with this kind of approach than if you leave it in the committee and let them do their work. I hope some others will join me in that respect because I am not against corn growers. I don't have very many in my State. But I think it is ridiculous to come to the floor and make this kind of argument in behalf of the environment and leaking underground tanks when you won't even give the most esteemed environmental chairman we have had around here since Ed Muskie a chance to conduct some hearings on it. Frankly, I hope we either table it or somebody offers a substitute so we can do what is right here tonight.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Crapo is in favor? Of course. Maybe he is because he is a corn grower. But I do not know that he is.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator who?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman for clarifying his understanding and mine that New Mexico's chile producers would be eligible for assistance through the specialty crop provisions of the pending Agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate his assistance on this important matter. cold war aquaculture research center

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to address the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee on an issue associated with the emergency agriculture disaster aid package. The amendment adopted by the Senate to provide emergency agriculture disaster aid includes a provision to assist the producers of specialty crops. May I enquire of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi if chile crops in New Mexico would be eligible for emergency aid under the specialty crop provision?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The Senate-reported bill provides $60.4 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $40.2 billion in new outlays to fund most of the programs of the Department of Agriculture and other related agencies. All of the discretionary funding in this bill is nondefense spending. When outlays from prior-year appropriations and other adjustments are taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $64.3 billion in BA and $47.3 billion in outlays for FY 2000. Including mandatory savings, the Subcommittee is at its 302(b) allocation in both BA and outlays. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 302(b) allocation totals $64.3 billion in BA and $47.3 billion in outlays. Within this amount, $14.0 billion in BA and $14.3 billion in outlays is for nondefense discretionary spending. For discretionary spending in the bill, and counting (scoring) all the mandatory savings in the bill, the Senate-reported bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation in BA and outlays. It is $22 million in BA below and $161 million in outlays above the 1999 level for discretionary spending, and $537 million in BA and $577 million in outlays below the President's request for these programs. I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor at its 302(b) allocation. I appreciate the Committee's support for a number of ongoing projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico as it has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about the Senate passage of a bill I introduced that will extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery in New Mexico. I also want to thank Senator Specter for his assistance that helped to make passage of this bill possible. The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces have made immeasurable sacrifices for the principles of freedom and liberty that make this Nation unique throughout civilization. The service of veterans has been vital to the history of the Nation, and the sacrifices made by veterans and their families should not be forgotten. These veterans at the very least deserve every opportunity to be buried at a National Cemetery of their choosing. Unfortunately, projections show the Santa Fe National Cemetery will run out of space to provide casketed burials for our veterans at the conclusion of 2000. However, with Senate passage of this bill we have taken an important step to ensure the continued viability of the Santa Fe National Cemetery. I believe all New Mexicans can be proud of the Santa Fe National Cemetery that has grown from 39/100 of an acre to its current 77 acres. The cemetery first opened in 1868 and within several years was designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Men and women who have fought in all of our nation's wars hold an honored spot within the hallowed ground of the cemetery. Today the Santa Fe National Cemetery contains almost 27,000 graves that are mostly marked by upright headstones. The Senate's action today brings us another step closer to ensuring the Santa Fe National Cemetery will not be forced to close. The bill passed today allows the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for the use of flat grave markers that will extend the useful life of the cemetery until 2008. While I wish the practice of utilizing headstones could continue indefinitely if a veteran chose, my wishes are outweighed by my desire to extend the useful life of the cemetery. I would note that my desire is shared by the New Mexico Chapter of the American Legion, the Albuquerque Chapter of the Retired Officers' Association, and the New Mexico Chapter of the VFW who have all endorsed the use of flat grave markers. Finally, this is not without precedent because exceptions to the law have been granted on six prior occasions with the most recent action occurring in 1994 when Congress authorized the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for the flat grave markers at the Willamette National Cemetery in Oregon. Mr. President, I again want to thank Senator Specter for his assistance and state how pleased I am with the Senate passage of this important bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. Title III, subtitle E, sec. 345--Protection of Investment of Employee Contributions to 401(k) plans--(b)(1)(A). Title III, subtitle F, sec. 351--Periodic Pension Benefits Statements--(b)(1)(A). Title III, subtitle F, sec. 356--Notice and Consent Period Regarding Distributions--(b)(1)(A). Title III, subtitle G, sec. 369--Annual Report Dissemination--(b)(1)(A). Title III, subtitle H, sec. 371--Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments--(b)(1)(A). Title IV, sec. 407--Federal Guarantee of School Construction Bonds by Federal Home Loan Banks--(b)(1)(A). Title IX, sec. 905--Advance Pricing Agreements Treated as Confidential Taxpayer Information--(b)(1)(A). Title X, subtitle C, sec. 1071--Study Relating to Taxable REIT Subsidiaries--(b)(1)(A). Title XIV, sec. 1401--Amendments Relating to Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998--(b)(1)(A). Title XIV, sec. 1402--Amendment Related to Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998--(b)(1)(A). Title XIV, sec. 1403--Amendments Related to Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997--(b)(1)(A). Title XIV, sec. 1404--Other Technical Corrections-- (b)(1)(A). Title XIV, sec. 1405--Clerical Changes--(b)(1)(A).

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

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this table clearly shows there is no Social Security money in this tax cut. Secondly, maybe the Senator is confused. CBO says the President still does not lock up all the Social Security money. It is $30 billion short. Last, I suggest if they are really concerned about the Social Security trust fund size, why are they filibustering against a lockbox that would encapsulate it and make sure it is there? In summary, the Senator from New Jersey is using the wrong chart. It does not apply to the real situation. We are using no Social Security money in terms of our tax cut. I move to table the Lautenberg motion to recommit and ask for the yeas and nays.