Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to argue, but I am not sending an amendment to be operative. I can put in a letter. If I want somebody to look at a proposed bill, why would anyone object?

Mr. DOMENICI. I am sure they cannot if they wanted to. It is not intended as anything other than for Senators to look at. If they are interested in how we might fix this situation, they might look at what is being recommended by the chairman. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am sending an amendment to the desk. If I can have the attention of Senator Conrad, I am sending a copy of the amendment he is going to propose following the disposition of this amendment, if we defeat it, so Senators can look at it and we can get rid of some delays. They can study it during the next 30 minutes or so.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if Senators will permit me to speak for 30 seconds on another matter?

Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator short on time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I hope I do not use that much time. In the end, after I am through analyzing it, I am not going to vote with the proponents. I am going to vote against the waiver that is before us and return us to the position we were in before this amendment, if it had passed. First, I want to, nonetheless, congratulate Senator Gregg and Senator Feingold on their amendment. I think I understand why they have offered this amendment on this supplemental bill. The amendment was offered in the Senate Budget Committee back in March, and it failed by a tie vote. But it probably would not have mattered if it had been added to the Senate Budget Committee reported resolution because, of course, the Senate has not yet considered a budget resolution, and it certainly has not considered that one. This brings us to my second point. The failure to adopt in the Senate a budget resolution, let alone a conference on a budget with the House, has put the Congress in a unique position of not having a budget for the first time in 27 years. The one time we did not achieve a conference agreement between the House and Senate, in 1998, we nevertheless did add a so-called deeming resolution in the Senate so that the process could proceed based on a Senate-passed budget resolution in that year. We are now seeing the problems of not having any blueprint. Whether it is good or medium or not so good, we are not going to have any blueprint, and I fear as we proceed through the summer and the fall that the problems will only increase, not decrease. I don't think I am overstating it when I say the budget process in Congress is hanging by a thread. There are some here who might say ``good riddance,'' but with no budget resolution, no spending limits, no way to set priorities, not even some indication that we are interested in fiscal discipline, those who would do away with the budget process will live to regret the direction in which we seem to be headed and what it will yield. That is why, absent a good and agreed-upon budget for next year, particularly as it relates to the level of appropriations I have been pressing for, at a minimum, a fiscal year 2003 spending cap, extension of expiring Budget Act enforcement provisions, including certain points of order, and other provisions that will maintain some discipline throughout the year, that is the way of supporting a major portion of the amendment you plan to offer if this one does not pass. That does not mean I approve of all of them, but they are among the provisions I think we must have if we are going to have any kind of enforcement. I have been working with the chairman of the Budget Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and our leadership to develop an amendment that would provide for this needed discipline. At this time, it is unclear that we will be able to offer this amendment or if it would have the 60 votes needed to waive the Budget Act in order that it be raised because it, too, would require a hearing before the Budget Committee and a report to escape the 60-vote requirement. This brings me to the Gregg-Feingold amendment. Absent an alternative, I support their amendment in order to lay down a marker to establish some discipline absent a budget resolution in place. But at this time I cannot support a waiver of the Budget Act. There are parts of their amendment with which I disagree. I am not sure we need 5-year spending caps if we are not going to have a budget resolution. I don't agree with the procedure that is being recommended in the amendment to remove provisions from an appropriations bill in a rifleshot manner. But, in general, except for the 5-year spending caps and the individual appropriations procedures, their proposal captures the major provisions of extending the pay-go provisions and the Budget Act points of order that expire this year. Again, I prefer to continue to work on an alternative 1-year cap proposal, and that is why I will not vote in favor of the Budget Act waiver that is required for this amendment. But if an alternative is not found, then the problems and the chaos I portend for this summer are certain to prevail in this Chamber. Maybe we still have a little time to correct it before it ends up as what I have just predicted. I thank those who have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what to do. It is difficult. In conclusion, the reason I will not vote for this is that there is $36.8 billion more in spending than the President's total appropriations, $26 billion less in Defense appropriations, and $63 billion more in other mandatory spending. I yield the floor and thank the Senator for graciously yielding me 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I would like 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I failed to call him chairman. He has been chairman for 6 more months. In any event, we wish the Senator well next year in whatever capacity. I wish to discuss not so much the amendment because I have explained why I do not think we should waive the Budget Act. We have to do better in trying to put discipline into what is currently a totally undisciplined situation with reference to goals and priorities. Appropriations will have no responsibilities on the various bills. There will be no total dollar number that flows. This amendment will not help that. I close my few remarks talking about, once again, the mistake we are making--and we are making it for whatever reason--in not passing a budget resolution. I am not filled with acrimony, but I do believe that in the over 27 years of serving, I felt a responsibility to get a budget, and actually we could have gotten a corner after an extremely tough year 3 years ago and said: Let's not do it. The Senator from New Hampshire could have been with me trying to keep discipline in this process. We could have said: Let's not do a budget resolution. It did some good. Some people are saying it did not. I would personally look at the area of entitlements and how many had caps which precluded passage of more than we spent. It is the same on appropriations. Obviously, there is friction against those two institutions, but we did some good. We happened to budget based upon an extremely powerful American economy which was with us for 10 years, and we got clipped in the 11th and 12th year when the economy did not stay strong. That is all that happened. If we could have kept the budget resolution, it would have forced it or would have done something better, and we would probably be right back to moving close to a balanced budget in the next 5 years. I am not sure we are going to get there without something like a budget resolution, something to shoot with each year. That is why I am saying we ought to do better than the Gregg amendment. He is on the right track. Maybe we can include him and his cosponsor with a group of us trying to do a little bit better. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder, does the Senator still control the time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask for about 3 or 4 minutes, and I will yield back.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to have a few moments with the chairman and Senator Gramm and others who are interested, building off your current amendment, which is pending--and I thank you for the accommodations that you have made to it--one which is very important to our side, very important to everyone, as we have come to know it, with the understanding that you know these enforcement provisions are not, for the most part, found in the Budget Act. These enforcement provisions were designed principally by a huge conference that was presided over by former White House OMB Director Darman--remember him-- and Senator Robert Byrd--you know him--and a few other people. We were about 2 weeks out there at Andrews Air Force Base when we tried to negotiate a budget. It fell apart in terms of numbers, most interestingly. Some people didn't get treated well politically, and others did. Those who know have said the most important thing we did in 1990 or 1991 were the enforcement provisions. We were doing something rather significant. It turned out the tax part didn't work out as well for the President as it should have, but these enforcement provisions survived. The principal author of those was Senator Robert Byrd, because we were giving, in a sense, many things he wanted, and in exchange he was trying to make sure that if they didn't do their job, something could happen to them, including his committee. Today the distinguished Senator, on an appropriations bill, is trying to see if we can save some of those. I want to say, I have looked at them. I think the language I have used for the last 2 or 3 minutes means that I like them. In particular, they have been changed a little bit. I like them. I think we would have changed them a little bit, whether we were down here or not, from 1990 because a couple of the provisions don't work too well. I regret that I can't seem to get a consensus on what else ought to belong in this. I think it is good, but it is half a measure because we ought to have some numbers in it. We ought to have some numbers for defense and some numbers for the rest of Government. Clearly, without any question, we don't need 5-year numbers at this point in the process. The process is questionable mostly because of the number assumptions, not these enforcement provisions, speaking in the past. But adults are going to sit down and arrive at this total; if not here, in a vote. If not tomorrow morning in a vote, they will go to a meeting someplace, and they are going to vote on how much we are going to allow for expenditures. We could go back to the day I arrived in the Senate, with Senator Nunn, Senator Helms, and others. We never knew what we spent until all the bills were added up. Nobody bothered to give you any interim reports on six committees that reported and six bills. We were new. We said: How can you run a government where nobody knows until you are finished and by then you have already spent it all? About 6 months later, the Budget Act was born on a premise that Senators Johnson and Domenici, heads of the freshman class, sent out a letter saying: Next year we will vote against all the measures together, 13 of us, if we don't have some process that tells us the pieces before we start. That was the beginning. So it has some pretty good history. I have been there and enforced it a lot of times. You know about 35 percent of the votes of the Senate are points of order, and most of those points of order are 60-vote points of order, which is the only effective means this Congress has found to make it difficult to spend money. That is the only one. Because when it is controversial and you are seeking something with a lot of money, it is not easy to get 60 votes. So you ought to have that around here next year, too, and the year after; right? The question is, how are you going to have it if you don't adopt it? Then to what are you going to make it applicable? I would have hoped that we could have gotten together beyond what is proposed and that we would go ahead and put the numbers in and get it done and then take a look, with our leadership, at where we go next. We still have a lot of amendments, but at least we could conceivably be through with this part. I am trying as best I can in my few comments to put a little life into this debate; otherwise, who wants to talk about budgets. I do because when you live them, it is interesting to talk about them. How did you get this thing done? Even the issue raised here, if we don't get one, we will deem one. I kept wondering, if that is the case, why in the world didn't we deem them when they were all so darned difficult? It is because when you finally go to look and see, what is that, it ain't so. We deemed a budget resolution that the Senate had adopted. That is what we deemed done. Incidentally, we deemed a budget resolution that had been done by the Senate but wasn't getting adopted, and so we said, rather than let this whole year go with nothing, we will have a deeming resolution. And what do we deem up against? A budget resolution. So even when we were in foxholes shooting at each other because we couldn't agree on anything, clearly we chose to get something that said the Budget Act is being enforced. As to the numbers I am giving you and others who want to be part of this, if they do, I am more than willing to come back and talk about them and see if we can put them together. Our leader will have them very shortly, and we will see where we go. I thank you very much for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI. I had them there because they are close to what the Senator has agreed to before.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a truly great American on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Dr. Lauriston S. Taylor was born on June 1, 1902. Dr. Taylor (or Laurie as he likes to be called) is one of the major contributors to our knowledge of radiation safety, not only in the United States but worldwide as well. Laurie published his first paper in 1922 while a student at Cornell and has contributed to radiation safety over a span of 80 years, publishing over 150 papers, and has written or contributed to over 16 books. Laurie served as Chairman of the National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP), the organization he helped establish and led for nearly 50 years and the organization now Chartered by the U.S. Congress as the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements. In addition, his accomplishments include serving as: President of the Health Physics Society, Chairman of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, President of the International Conference on Medical Physics, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and Special Assistant to the President of the National Academy of Sciences. A few of the many awards bestowed upon Laurie include: The Presidential Bronze Star and the Medal of Freedom from the United States Air Force, The Gold Medal from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and The Janeway Medal from the American Radium Society. It is with pleasure that I note that Dr. Taylor's decades of contributions to improving radiation safety throughout the World have been documented by the Health Physics Society in an edition of their international journal Health Physics, and their Newsletter. Laurie is, indeed, a person for all seasons: teacher, mentor, scholar, leader and visionary. I deeply appreciate all that Laurie Taylor has contributed to this Nation and the world. I invite my colleagues to join in wishing him a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Am I scheduled now in morning business?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2540 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to bring the Senate's attention to a matter that is slowing Los Alamos County, NM, in its efforts to fully recover from the Cerro Grande Fire of May 10, 2000. It is an amazing irony to me that Los Alamos National Laboratory, in recent years facing declines in personnel, is again in the national news for its ability to help with counter-terrorism on many fronts. Along with this national attention and the needs of our Homeland Security Agency for advanced scientific means to detect and deter nuclear and biological attacks, LANL is now in the process of filling about 1,000 new positions. The irony is that the Cerro Grande fire severely reduced available housing in Los Alamos two years before our Nation turns once again to Los Alamos for its scientific talents. A major deterrent to new hires is the lack of housing choices in Los Alamos. The housing market is even tighter because of the loss of about 400 housing units through the devastating Cerro Grande Fire. Los Alamos has a population of about 18,000 people. While we have Federal programs to help low and moderate income Americans find good housing, in Los Alamos these programs are ineffective due to the current practice of averaging Los Alamos County and Santa Fe County incomes into one Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA. This is harmful to Los Alamos residents, where the median income is about $82,000 because the Federal programs use the MSA median income of about $65,000 to determine participation. Eighty percent of median income is a standard measure. Santa Fe's median income of about $40,000 thus becomes a significant factor for a Los Alamos teacher, fireman, or policeman seeking subsidized Federal assistance. Their incomes in Los Alamos are deemed to be too high to qualify for housing because 80 percent of $65,000 is used as the maximum allowed for assistance. Thus, $52,000 becomes the effective ceiling for assistance, when the actual 80 percent ceiling figure for Los Alamos incomes is about $65,000. This makes a huge difference in a high-priced and competitive market. The result is that developers are discouraged from applying for tax credits and other assistance programs because their applicants do not qualify to live in their new or remodeled housing projects. The Los Alamos County Manager reports that not a single County employee is eligible for housing created by the Low Income Housing Tax Credits. He, like many residents and the LANL recruiting effort, remain concerned that the limited housing supply has raised rents and sales prices. Los Alamos County is also landlocked by Federal government land ownership. There is a desperate need for affordable housing at a time when, once again, our nation is calling upon LANL for helping to meet its internal and international security needs. This situation also exists around the New York City area, where Westchester County incomes unfairly raise the metropolitan average to the detriment of the metropolitan housing market. In that case, Congress agreed to separate Westchester County to ease the housing market situation. All I am asking in my bill is to accomplish the same goal by allowing Los Alamos County to stand on its own in terms of HUD median income requirements. My bill does not simultaneously lower the Santa Fe County income to its actual median, but, rather, allows Santa Fe County to continue to use the higher median, because the Santa Fe housing market is also very unusual, and the two-county average helps make more Santa Fe residents eligible for Federal assistance on many fronts. I appreciate my colleagues attention to this matter, and I know the residents of Los Alamos County will be grateful for this assistance to allow more of them to make use of available HUD and other affordable housing assistance programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002. Senators Biden, Lugar, Landrieu, Hagel, Murkowski and Bingaman--the junior Senator from my State--join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 started a chain of events, which in the long term can lead to vastly improved global stability. Concerns about global confrontations were greatly reduced after that event. But with that event, the Soviet system of guards, guns, and a highly regimented society that had effectively controlled their weapons of mass destruction, along with the materials and expertise to create them, was significantly weakened. Even today, with Russia's economy well on the road to recovery, there's still plenty of room for concerns about the security of these Russian assets. The tragic events of September 11 brought the United States into the world of international terrorism, a world from which we had been very sheltered. Even with the successes of the subsequent war on terrorism, there's still ample reason for concern that the forces of Al Qaeda and other international terrorists are seeking other avenues to disrupt peaceful societies around the world. In some sense, the events of September 11 set a new gruesome standard against which terrorists may measure their future successes. There should be no question that these groups would use weapons of mass destruction if they could acquire them and deliver them here or to countless other international locations. One of our strongest allies in the current war on terrorism has been the Russian Federation. Assistance from the Russians and other states of the former Soviet Union has been vital in many aspects of the conflict in Afghanistan. President Putin and President Bush have forged a strong working relationship, and the current summit meeting is another measure of interest in increased cooperation. As this new bill seeks to strengthen our nonproliferation programs, it provides many options for actions to be conducted through joint partnerships between the Russian Federation and the United States that build on this increased cooperative spirit. The Nunn-Lugar program of 1991 and the Nunn-Lugar Domenici legislation of 1996 provided vital support for cooperative programs to reduce the risks that weapons of mass destruction might become available to terrorists. They established a framework for cooperative progress that has served our nation and the world very well. But despite their successes, there remain many actions that should be taken to further reduce these threats. The report by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler is one of the most comprehensive calls for increased attention to these risks. That report, which was written well before September 11, and many others have suggested additional actions that could and should be taken beyond the two original bills. One of the most important realizations from September 11 concerns the global reach of the forces of terrorism. It's now clear that our nuclear nonproliferation programs should extend far beyond the states of the former Soviet Union. This new bill expands and strengthens many of the programs established earlier, to further reduce threats to global peace. It expands the scope of several programs to world-wide coverage. It focuses on threats of a nuclear or radiological type, which fall within the expertise of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy. It expands programs to include the safety and security of nuclear facilities and radioactive materials around the world, wherever countries are willing to enter into cooperative arrangements for threat reduction. It recognizes that devices that disperse radioactive materials, so-called ``dirty bombs,'' can represent a real threat to modern societies. Dirty bombs could be used as weapons of mass terror, property contamination, and economic disaster. We need better detection systems for the presence of dirty bombs that are appropriate to the wide range of delivery systems for such a weapon, from trucks to boats to containers. And we need to be far better prepared to deal with the consequences of such an attack. The new legislation includes provisions to accelerate and expand existing programs for disposition of fissile materials. These materials, of course, represent not only a concern with dirty bombs, but also the even larger threat of use in crude nuclear weapons. It includes a program that should help accelerate the conversion of highly enriched uranium into forms unusable for weapons. It addresses one of the major concerns associated with this material, that both the United States in the Atoms for Peace program as well as the Soviet Union, provided highly enriched uranium to many countries as fuel for research reactors. That fuel represents a proliferation risk today. It authorizes new programs for global management of nuclear materials, in cooperation with other nations and with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It recognizes that modern societies use radioactive materials as essential tools in many ways, and offers assistance in providing new controls on the most dangerous of these materials. It suggests that many of the program elements involve international cooperation with the Russian Federation and with other nations. In fact, it recognizes that the global nature of the current threats requires such cooperation, and provides authorizations for the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of State to offer significant help to other nations. In many cases, we cannot accomplish these programs without such cooperation. This new bill includes provisions extending the first responder training programs, originally created under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici. These programs have already made real contributions. In fact, the training provided under this program in New York City helped mitigate the catastrophe there on September 11. That program was authorized for only 5 years in the original legislation. This bill extends that authorization for another 10 years for first responder preparation in various communities and cities of America. The new bill requires annual reports demonstrating that all our nonproliferation programs are well coordinated and integrated. Countless reports have called for improved coordination of all federal nonproliferation programs. The original call for this coordination in the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation was completely ignored by the Clinton administration. The report requires an annual statement of the extent of coordination between federally funded and private activities. That is very important, because of the important work being done by private organizations, like the Nuclear Threat Initiative, that are providing critical assistance toward similar nonproliferation goals. With this new bill, our programs to counter threats of nuclear and radiological terrorism will be significantly strengthened and risks to the United States and our international partners can be greatly reduced. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to bring the Senate's attention to a matter that is slowing Los Alamos County, NM, in its efforts to fully recover from the Cerro Grande Fire of May 10, 2000. It is an amazing irony to me that Los Alamos National Laboratory, in recent years facing declines in personnel, is again in the national news for its ability to help with counter-terrorism on many fronts. Along with this national attention and the needs of our Homeland Security Agency for advanced scientific means to detect and deter nuclear and biological attacks, LANL is now in the process of filling about 1,000 new positions. The irony is that the Cerro Grande fire severely reduced available housing in Los Alamos two years before our Nation turns once again to Los Alamos for its scientific talents. A major deterrent to new hires is the lack of housing choices in Los Alamos. The housing market is even tighter because of the loss of about 400 housing units through the devastating Cerro Grande Fire. Los Alamos has a population of about 18,000 people. While we have Federal programs to help low and moderate income Americans find good housing, in Los Alamos these programs are ineffective due to the current practice of averaging Los Alamos County and Santa Fe County incomes into one Metropolitan Statistical Area, MSA. This is harmful to Los Alamos residents, where the median income is about $82,000 because the Federal programs use the MSA median income of about $65,000 to determine participation. Eighty percent of median income is a standard measure. Santa Fe's median income of about $40,000 thus becomes a significant factor for a Los Alamos teacher, fireman, or policeman seeking subsidized Federal assistance. Their incomes in Los Alamos are deemed to be too high to qualify for housing because 80 percent of $65,000 is used as the maximum allowed for assistance. Thus, $52,000 becomes the effective ceiling for assistance, when the actual 80 percent ceiling figure for Los Alamos incomes is about $65,000. This makes a huge difference in a high-priced and competitive market. The result is that developers are discouraged from applying for tax credits and other assistance programs because their applicants do not qualify to live in their new or remodeled housing projects. The Los Alamos County Manager reports that not a single County employee is eligible for housing created by the Low Income Housing Tax Credits. He, like many residents and the LANL recruiting effort, remain concerned that the limited housing supply has raised rents and sales prices. Los Alamos County is also landlocked by Federal government land ownership. There is a desperate need for affordable housing at a time when, once again, our nation is calling upon LANL for helping to meet its internal and international security needs. This situation also exists around the New York City area, where Westchester County incomes unfairly raise the metropolitan average to the detriment of the metropolitan housing market. In that case, Congress agreed to separate Westchester County to ease the housing market situation. All I am asking in my bill is to accomplish the same goal by allowing Los Alamos County to stand on its own in terms of HUD median income requirements. My bill does not simultaneously lower the Santa Fe County income to its actual median, but, rather, allows Santa Fe County to continue to use the higher median, because the Santa Fe housing market is also very unusual, and the two-county average helps make more Santa Fe residents eligible for Federal assistance on many fronts. I appreciate my colleagues attention to this matter, and I know the residents of Los Alamos County will be grateful for this assistance to allow more of them to make use of available HUD and other affordable housing assistance programs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002. Senators Biden, Lugar, Landrieu, Hagel, Murkowski and Bingaman--the junior Senator from my State--join me in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 started a chain of events, which in the long term can lead to vastly improved global stability. Concerns about global confrontations were greatly reduced after that event. But with that event, the Soviet system of guards, guns, and a highly regimented society that had effectively controlled their weapons of mass destruction, along with the materials and expertise to create them, was significantly weakened. Even today, with Russia's economy well on the road to recovery, there's still plenty of room for concerns about the security of these Russian assets. The tragic events of September 11 brought the United States into the world of international terrorism, a world from which we had been very sheltered. Even with the successes of the subsequent war on terrorism, there's still ample reason for concern that the forces of Al Qaeda and other international terrorists are seeking other avenues to disrupt peaceful societies around the world. In some sense, the events of September 11 set a new gruesome standard against which terrorists may measure their future successes. There should be no question that these groups would use weapons of mass destruction if they could acquire them and deliver them here or to countless other international locations. One of our strongest allies in the current war on terrorism has been the Russian Federation. Assistance from the Russians and other states of the former Soviet Union has been vital in many aspects of the conflict in Afghanistan. President Putin and President Bush have forged a strong working relationship, and the current summit meeting is another measure of interest in increased cooperation. As this new bill seeks to strengthen our nonproliferation programs, it provides many options for actions to be conducted through joint partnerships between the Russian Federation and the United States that build on this increased cooperative spirit. The Nunn-Lugar program of 1991 and the Nunn-Lugar Domenici legislation of 1996 provided vital support for cooperative programs to reduce the risks that weapons of mass destruction might become available to terrorists. They established a framework for cooperative progress that has served our nation and the world very well. But despite their successes, there remain many actions that should be taken to further reduce these threats. The report by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler is one of the most comprehensive calls for increased attention to these risks. That report, which was written well before September 11, and many others have suggested additional actions that could and should be taken beyond the two original bills. One of the most important realizations from September 11 concerns the global reach of the forces of terrorism. It's now clear that our nuclear nonproliferation programs should extend far beyond the states of the former Soviet Union. This new bill expands and strengthens many of the programs established earlier, to further reduce threats to global peace. It expands the scope of several programs to world-wide coverage. It focuses on threats of a nuclear or radiological type, which fall within the expertise of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy. It expands programs to include the safety and security of nuclear facilities and radioactive materials around the world, wherever countries are willing to enter into cooperative arrangements for threat reduction. It recognizes that devices that disperse radioactive materials, so-called ``dirty bombs,'' can represent a real threat to modern societies. Dirty bombs could be used as weapons of mass terror, property contamination, and economic disaster. We need better detection systems for the presence of dirty bombs that are appropriate to the wide range of delivery systems for such a weapon, from trucks to boats to containers. And we need to be far better prepared to deal with the consequences of such an attack. The new legislation includes provisions to accelerate and expand existing programs for disposition of fissile materials. These materials, of course, represent not only a concern with dirty bombs, but also the even larger threat of use in crude nuclear weapons. It includes a program that should help accelerate the conversion of highly enriched uranium into forms unusable for weapons. It addresses one of the major concerns associated with this material, that both the United States in the Atoms for Peace program as well as the Soviet Union, provided highly enriched uranium to many countries as fuel for research reactors. That fuel represents a proliferation risk today. It authorizes new programs for global management of nuclear materials, in cooperation with other nations and with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It recognizes that modern societies use radioactive materials as essential tools in many ways, and offers assistance in providing new controls on the most dangerous of these materials. It suggests that many of the program elements involve international cooperation with the Russian Federation and with other nations. In fact, it recognizes that the global nature of the current threats requires such cooperation, and provides authorizations for the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of State to offer significant help to other nations. In many cases, we cannot accomplish these programs without such cooperation. This new bill includes provisions extending the first responder training programs, originally created under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici. These programs have already made real contributions. In fact, the training provided under this program in New York City helped mitigate the catastrophe there on September 11. That program was authorized for only 5 years in the original legislation. This bill extends that authorization for another 10 years for first responder preparation in various communities and cities of America. The new bill requires annual reports demonstrating that all our nonproliferation programs are well coordinated and integrated. Countless reports have called for improved coordination of all federal nonproliferation programs. The original call for this coordination in the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation was completely ignored by the Clinton administration. The report requires an annual statement of the extent of coordination between federally funded and private activities. That is very important, because of the important work being done by private organizations, like the Nuclear Threat Initiative, that are providing critical assistance toward similar nonproliferation goals. With this new bill, our programs to counter threats of nuclear and radiological terrorism will be significantly strengthened and risks to the United States and our international partners can be greatly reduced. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002. Severe droughts are not solely the curse of the Southwest. Lately, it has been apparent that every region in the United States can be hit by drought. We have certainly experienced our share of drought in the Southwest, but we have also seen the phenomenon occur in the Pacific Northwest, California, the Great Basin States, and this year in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. According to the recent Drought Monitor, a joint production of the National Drought Mitigation Center, USDA, NOAA, and the Climate Prediction Center, nearly a third of the United States is currently in a moderate to extreme drought. Currently, the State of New Mexico and much of the Rocky Mountain States are near or below 50 percent of normal based on low snow pack. Along the east coast, precipitation in many places is 8-20 inches below normal over the last year. Drought is a unique emergency situation; it creeps in unlike other abrupt weather disasters. Without a national drought policy we constantly live not knowing what the next year will bring. If we find ourselves facing a drought, towns could be scrambling to drill new water wells, fire could sweep across bone dry forests and farmers, and ranchers could be forced to watch their way of life blow away with the dust. We must be vigilant and prepare ourselves for quick action when the next drought cycle begins. Better planning on our part could limit some of the damage felt by drought. I propose that this bill is the exact tool needed for facilitating better planning. The impacts of drought are also very costly. According to NOAA, there have been 12 different drought events since 1980 that resulted in damages and costs exceeding $1 billion each. In 2000, severe drought in the South-Central and Southeastern States caused losses to agriculture and related industries of over $4 billion. Western wildfires that year totaled over $2 billion in damages. The Eastern drought in 1999 led to $1 billion in losses. These are just a few of the statistics. While drought affects the economic and environmental well-being of the entire Nation, the United States has lacked a cohesive strategy for dealing with serious drought emergencies. As many of you know, the impact of drought emerges gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with other natural disasters. In 1996, every part of New Mexico suffered from severe drought. As a result, I convened a special Multi-State Drought Task Force of Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency management agencies to coordinate efforts to respond to drought. The task force was headed up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and included every Federal agency that has programs designed to deal with drought. The task force found that although the Federal Government has many drought-related programs on the books, the real problem is that there is no integrated, coordinated system of implementing those programs. With the recommendations from the Western Governors' Association, the National Governors' Association, and the Multi-State Drought Task Force, I introduced the National Drought Policy Act of 1997. This piece of legislation, which was signed into law, was the first step toward establishing a coherent, effective national drought policy. The legislation created a commission comprised of representatives of those Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and organizations most involved in drought issues. The bill further charged the commission with providing recommendations on a permanent and systematic federal process to address this particular type of devastating natural disaster. The commission included representatives from USDA, Interior, the Army, FEMA, SBA and Commerce--all agencies with current drought-related programs. The commission also included non-Federal members such as representatives from the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and four persons representing those groups that are always hardest hit by drought emergencies. The commission was charged with determining what needs existed on the Federal, State, local, and tribal levels with regard to drought; reviewing existing drought programs; and determining what gaps exist between the needs of drought victims and those programs currently designed to deal with drought. Finally, the commission was charged with making recommendations on how Federal drought laws and programs could be better integrated into a comprehensive national drought policy. Ultimately, the commission concluded that ``we must adopt a forward- looking stance to reduce this nation's vulnerability to the impacts of drought. Preparedness--including drought planning, plan implementation, proactive mitigation, risk management, resource stewardship, consideration of environmental concerns, and public education--must become the cornerstone of national drought policy.'' The guiding principles of drought policy should be one, favoring preparedness over insurance, insurance over relief, and incentives over regulation; two, setting research priorities based on the potential of the research results to reduce drought impacts; and three, coordinating the delivery of Federal services through cooperation and collaboration with non- Federal entities. I am pleased to be following through on what I started in 1997. The bill that I am introducing today is the next step in implementing a national, cohesive drought policy. The bill recognizes that drought is a recurring phenomenon that causes serious economic and environmental loss and that a national drought policy is needed to ensure an integrated, coordinated strategy. The National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002 does the following: It creates national policy for drought. This will hopefully move the country away from the costly, ad-hoc, response-oriented approach to drought, and move us toward a pro-active, preparedness approach. The new national policy would provide the tools and focus, similar to the Stafford Act, for Federal, State, tribal and local governments to address the diverse impacts and costs caused by drought. The bill would improve delivery of Federal drought programs. This would ensure improved program delivery, integration, and leadership. To achieve this intended purpose, the bill establishes the National Drought Council, designating USDA as the lead Federal agency. The council and USDA would provide the coordinating and integrating function for Federal drought programs, much like FEMA provides that function for other natural disasters under the Stafford Act. The act will provide new tools for drought preparedness planning. Building on existing policy and planning processes, the bill would assist States, local governments, tribes, and other entities in the development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The bill does not mandate State and local planning, but is intended to facilitate plan development and implementation through establishment of the drought assistance fund. The bill would improve forecasting and monitoring by facilitating the development of the National Drought Monitoring Network in order to improve the characterization of current drought conditions and the forecasting of future droughts. Ultimately, this would provide a better basis to trigger Federal drought assistance. Finally, the bill would authorize FEMA to provide reimbursement to States for reasonable staging and pre-positioning costs when there is a threat of a wildfire. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002. Severe droughts are not solely the curse of the Southwest. Lately, it has been apparent that every region in the United States can be hit by drought. We have certainly experienced our share of drought in the Southwest, but we have also seen the phenomenon occur in the Pacific Northwest, California, the Great Basin States, and this year in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. According to the recent Drought Monitor, a joint production of the National Drought Mitigation Center, USDA, NOAA, and the Climate Prediction Center, nearly a third of the United States is currently in a moderate to extreme drought. Currently, the State of New Mexico and much of the Rocky Mountain States are near or below 50 percent of normal based on low snow pack. Along the east coast, precipitation in many places is 8-20 inches below normal over the last year. Drought is a unique emergency situation; it creeps in unlike other abrupt weather disasters. Without a national drought policy we constantly live not knowing what the next year will bring. If we find ourselves facing a drought, towns could be scrambling to drill new water wells, fire could sweep across bone dry forests and farmers, and ranchers could be forced to watch their way of life blow away with the dust. We must be vigilant and prepare ourselves for quick action when the next drought cycle begins. Better planning on our part could limit some of the damage felt by drought. I propose that this bill is the exact tool needed for facilitating better planning. The impacts of drought are also very costly. According to NOAA, there have been 12 different drought events since 1980 that resulted in damages and costs exceeding $1 billion each. In 2000, severe drought in the South-Central and Southeastern States caused losses to agriculture and related industries of over $4 billion. Western wildfires that year totaled over $2 billion in damages. The Eastern drought in 1999 led to $1 billion in losses. These are just a few of the statistics. While drought affects the economic and environmental well-being of the entire Nation, the United States has lacked a cohesive strategy for dealing with serious drought emergencies. As many of you know, the impact of drought emerges gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with other natural disasters. In 1996, every part of New Mexico suffered from severe drought. As a result, I convened a special Multi-State Drought Task Force of Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency management agencies to coordinate efforts to respond to drought. The task force was headed up by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and included every Federal agency that has programs designed to deal with drought. The task force found that although the Federal Government has many drought-related programs on the books, the real problem is that there is no integrated, coordinated system of implementing those programs. With the recommendations from the Western Governors' Association, the National Governors' Association, and the Multi-State Drought Task Force, I introduced the National Drought Policy Act of 1997. This piece of legislation, which was signed into law, was the first step toward establishing a coherent, effective national drought policy. The legislation created a commission comprised of representatives of those Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and organizations most involved in drought issues. The bill further charged the commission with providing recommendations on a permanent and systematic federal process to address this particular type of devastating natural disaster. The commission included representatives from USDA, Interior, the Army, FEMA, SBA and Commerce--all agencies with current drought-related programs. The commission also included non-Federal members such as representatives from the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and four persons representing those groups that are always hardest hit by drought emergencies. The commission was charged with determining what needs existed on the Federal, State, local, and tribal levels with regard to drought; reviewing existing drought programs; and determining what gaps exist between the needs of drought victims and those programs currently designed to deal with drought. Finally, the commission was charged with making recommendations on how Federal drought laws and programs could be better integrated into a comprehensive national drought policy. Ultimately, the commission concluded that ``we must adopt a forward- looking stance to reduce this nation's vulnerability to the impacts of drought. Preparedness--including drought planning, plan implementation, proactive mitigation, risk management, resource stewardship, consideration of environmental concerns, and public education--must become the cornerstone of national drought policy.'' The guiding principles of drought policy should be one, favoring preparedness over insurance, insurance over relief, and incentives over regulation; two, setting research priorities based on the potential of the research results to reduce drought impacts; and three, coordinating the delivery of Federal services through cooperation and collaboration with non- Federal entities. I am pleased to be following through on what I started in 1997. The bill that I am introducing today is the next step in implementing a national, cohesive drought policy. The bill recognizes that drought is a recurring phenomenon that causes serious economic and environmental loss and that a national drought policy is needed to ensure an integrated, coordinated strategy. The National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002 does the following: It creates national policy for drought. This will hopefully move the country away from the costly, ad-hoc, response-oriented approach to drought, and move us toward a pro-active, preparedness approach. The new national policy would provide the tools and focus, similar to the Stafford Act, for Federal, State, tribal and local governments to address the diverse impacts and costs caused by drought. The bill would improve delivery of Federal drought programs. This would ensure improved program delivery, integration, and leadership. To achieve this intended purpose, the bill establishes the National Drought Council, designating USDA as the lead Federal agency. The council and USDA would provide the coordinating and integrating function for Federal drought programs, much like FEMA provides that function for other natural disasters under the Stafford Act. The act will provide new tools for drought preparedness planning. Building on existing policy and planning processes, the bill would assist States, local governments, tribes, and other entities in the development and implementation of drought preparedness plans. The bill does not mandate State and local planning, but is intended to facilitate plan development and implementation through establishment of the drought assistance fund. The bill would improve forecasting and monitoring by facilitating the development of the National Drought Monitoring Network in order to improve the characterization of current drought conditions and the forecasting of future droughts. Ultimately, this would provide a better basis to trigger Federal drought assistance. Finally, the bill would authorize FEMA to provide reimbursement to States for reasonable staging and pre-positioning costs when there is a threat of a wildfire. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill in honor of former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato on behalf of myself and 40 of my colleagues thus far. I am sure there will be more. It recently came to my attention that the Federal courthouse in Central Islip, Long Island, did not have a name so I thought to myself: What a shame. This beautiful new courthouse does not even have a name, and I concluded that it was time to rectify the oversight. Who better than Alfonse D'Amato, a great Senator from New York, who had more than a little bit to do with providing the people of the Empire State with public buildings to conduct the business of government and justice. Forty of my colleagues concur that we ought to name this U.S. courthouse the ``Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Courthouse.'' I believe that is the right thing to do. I understand the U.S. Representatives from New York are moving similar legislation through their body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill in honor of former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato on behalf of myself and 40 of my colleagues thus far. I am sure there will be more. It recently came to my attention that the Federal courthouse in Central Islip, Long Island, did not have a name so I thought to myself: What a shame. This beautiful new courthouse does not even have a name, and I concluded that it was time to rectify the oversight. Who better than Alfonse D'Amato, a great Senator from New York, who had more than a little bit to do with providing the people of the Empire State with public buildings to conduct the business of government and justice. Forty of my colleagues concur that we ought to name this U.S. courthouse the ``Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Courthouse.'' I believe that is the right thing to do. I understand the U.S. Representatives from New York are moving similar legislation through their body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.