Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Twenty minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are now debating the farm bill conference report. I have some serious concerns about the policies embodied in this conference report. I will speak to those concerns shortly, but, first, I want to address another concern. My concern is, where is the budget? Where is the budget that we will use to judge not only whether we can afford this farm bill, but other legislation that might come before the Senate during the remainder of Congress? Interestingly, the tortuous path that this farm bill has taken to get to a final vote tomorrow began exactly 1 year ago this week when we adopted the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. That budget resolution was adopted prior to us knowing that we had an economic downturn and obviously, prior to the September 11 attacks on the United States of America. At the time the budget resolution was adopted, the projections indicated there would be a general budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade, and that after the tax cuts there would still be a very large surplus. We now know that the economic downturn, increased emergency defense, homeland security spending that followed the September 11 attacks, and the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act enacted last winter to assist workers impacted by the economic slowdown, have all combined to lower the general surplus outlook to about $1.7 trillion over a comparable 10-year period. This farm bill agreement that is before us today seems to be blissfully ignorant of the events over the last year. It embodies commodity policies that return us to business as usual, high subsidies, distorting trade provisions, and increasing Government costs. Those who do not follow the intricacies of the budget process might say: This makes no sense. Don't we have a budget by which to judge this legislation? Yes, the one we adopted 1 year ago this week. It is not the budget resolution for the year 2003; it is the budget resolution for 2002, adopted when Republicans were still in control of the Senate by one vote. Yes, that budget provided for increases in agricultural spending and other spending, such as prescription drugs. Specifically, that budget that authorized the chairman of the Budget Committee to allocate $73.5 billion to the Agriculture Committee, so long as it did not come out of the Social Security or Medicare trust fund. Can anybody stand on the floor and honestly say that the expenditures in this farm bill will not come out of the Social Security trust fund or the Medicare trust fund? I have not been raising this issue, but it is interesting that the current chairman of the Budget Committee, who usually raises this issue while trying to ensure we do not spend the Medicare and Social Security trust fund is not raising it now. And now we see the bigger, more serious problem. The problem will not be just with this farm bill; it will be with the other spending and tax legislation we consider in the remaining days of this Congress. These measures will be judged against an outdated budget plan, one adopted last year when the Republicans were in control of this body, not one for current allocations and current needs, which has not been adopted on the floor of the Senate as of this date. The question is asked again, Where is the budget? Where is the budget against which we are going to judge this farm bill and other legislation that I have just iterated that are certainly going to come before the Senate? Until we agree to a new updated budget that reflects the dramatic changes that have occurred over the last 12 to 18 months, the old budget, the one I was responsible for getting adopted by the Senate and conferenced--that budget remains in effect until replaced by an updated budget. And until that time, any Budget Act points of order, any allocations to authorizing committees, any reserve fund releases, such as prescription drug spending or health insurance for the uninsured, will be judged not by what is reality today but by what we thought it would be before the economic downturn and before the terrorist attacks on the United States just prior to mid-September. Some may wonder, why have a budget resolution? I do not have to wonder. I only have to see what is happening on the floor of the Senate. Anyone can predict what is going to happen in the next few months--not years, the next few months--in fact, some of which has already happened prior to taking up this conference report on agriculture. We cannot, and we should not, legislate, in my opinion, without a budget blueprint. Every year, since the Budget Act became law in 1974, the Senate has adopted a budget resolution, as required, and in some years more than one. In some years we missed the deadline, but we always adopted a budget resolution in the Senate. Only once in the nearly 28-year history of the act has the House of Representatives and the Senate failed to conference their budget resolutions. In 1998, the year following the balanced budget agreement of 1997, Chairman John Kasich and I were unable to bridge the differences in the two resolutions. Rather amazing--we were both Republicans, and that was the one year we could not bridge the differences. All other years, regardless of the makeup of the two bodies, we did arrive at a conclusion. Let me repeat, the Senate has passed a budget resolution every year. There was one time when we did not have a conferenced budget blueprint, and we agreed here in the Senate to follow the Senate-passed resolution as our blueprint for spending and taxing. But, we had what would amount to a budget by concurrence of the Senate. I have been on that Budget Committee for 27 years. I was not a member in the first organizing meeting in 1974, when Senator Muskie was chairman, though there was a Senator Peter Dominick who was Senator Muskie's ranking member that year, and some historians get me confused with him. In those 27 years, my colleagues have honored me by allowing me to serve as committee chairman for 12\1/2\ years and as its ranking member for 9. In all those years, we adopted a Senate budget resolution. It was not easy. Sometimes I thought we would fail, but we stuck with it, and many times on a bipartisan basis we prevailed and the blueprint to guide fiscal policy was achieved. A budget resolution takes care of many things automatically and with precision. Right now there is no precision, there is no decision, and we are flying essentially by the seat of our pants on many issues. Every year under the leadership of Chairman Muskie, Chairman Chiles, and Chairman Sasser, the Senate has adopted a budget resolution. Today the House of Representatives has passed a budget resolution for next year. Today the President of the United States has submitted a budget to Congress for next year. Today we do not have a budget in the Senate. Beginning today, we legislate a major spending bill, a farm bill, that is based on a budget I admittedly helped craft last year, but also I freely admit is outdated and needs to be revised. It is time that be done. It is obvious that the Senate thinks it should be done. I truly doubt that we have been as omniscient as one may think. Had we been able to foresee the events of last year when we were crafting that budget, we would not have allocated the level of spending we did to the farm bill; of that I am almost certain. That is why we need a new budget, and that is why this decision we make tomorrow can send a signal to the country and our trading partners throughout the world that we know it is not business as usual. We need to craft a new budget for these new times. For just a few moments, I will talk about a couple of New Mexico- specific concerns. In addition to my objections to this conference report on budget and trade grounds, I must note that this legislation is especially harmful to one of the most important parts of the agricultural economy of my State of New Mexico--dairy farmers. New Mexico's milk producers are hurt more by this bill's provisions in my State than any other State in the Union. Our producers will lose between $4 and $5 million a year compared to current law. And that is a conservative estimate. Just today, there is a FAPRI estimate that indicates the losses would be as high as $51.2 million over the life of this program. Regardless, this means that at least $30,000 per dairy farm in New Mexico will be lost because of this bill. New Mexico, which has climbed to the seventh largest milk-producing State in the Union, will see minimum losses over the life of the program of at least $125,000 per farm, and most will likely suffer larger losses. My dairy farmers want a market-driven system. They can compete on quality and efficiency with any other dairy farming group in this Nation. If we just let them do their job under a free market. These producers will supply plenty of milk and it will be of the highest quality. My dairy producers are opposed to direct payments. They also oppose the caps in this bill. And they are punished because this legislation contains both--direct payments and caps. And neither is predicated upon large dairy farms but, rather, is predicated upon the small milk farms. Most of our farms are 1,500 head or more and are becoming more efficient every year. They welcome competition from anywhere. They are efficient. They are innovative. They do great things. Yet, they are punished. We come along and say this is not the American way for the farm bill. We are going to punish you because you are efficient, because you produce, because you are highly innovative. Instead of saying: You are going to get as good a deal as you deserve, as fine a return as you deserve in the American market, we are going to tell you what you get. In this instance, we are going to take away from you between $4 and $5 million a year, perhaps as much as $125,000 per farm during the time this bill exists. The dairy industry in my State--and we are a small State in terms of business--has revitalized large parts of the New Mexico economy. Nearly 4,000 New Mexicans earn a living directly from dairy, with payrolls in excess of $90 million a year. New Mexico's dairies and producers spend nearly $400 million annually for labor and feed. For our State, which lags near the bottom of per capita income statistics, this conference report is a direct attack. I cannot support such a conference report. I will not. I know there are predictions of how bad it would be if this did not pass. I have studied it all. I think I know as much as anyone here about it. It would be a great signal if it did not pass. Then we could produce a budget and decide how much money should be put in for the agricultural community under a budget that is current. This wrongheaded agricultural policy promoted by this conference report is especially tragic in light of the real progress that was made in this bill in the area of nutrition. Many do not know that this bill called agriculture is also the principal nutrition legislation for our country. The bill retains the Domenici-Durbin amendment to restore food stamp benefits to eligible legal immigrants who have been in our country for 5 years. This policy will help feed an estimated 360,000 people per month. In addition, the bill simplifies and streamlines the application process for food stamps. It increases funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program and makes it easier for nonprofit participation in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to feed the elderly and small children. In total, the legislation provides for $6.4 billion in food stamps and other nutrition programs. This amount falls short of the $8.9 billion provided in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill. At least we are making some progress toward eliminating involuntary hunger in America. So this Senator finds himself in an unusual position of voting no on this farm bill. The good things in nutrition fail to outweigh the bad agricultural policy positions envisioned by this bill. I will remind my colleagues that we have spent an enormous amount of money in the last 2 years on agriculture with the ``emergency'' funding for $27.3 billion, as well as $5.5 billion in new agriculture commodity support payments just last July. I am fully aware of that. I understand the threats--veiled or otherwise--that if we don't get this bill now, we will have a repetition of what I have described in the last paragraph of my comments. I don't believe so. I believe we understand clearly where we are, and I do believe that now is the time to say no to legislation that clearly doesn't fit a budget--at least we don't know that it does--and has the kind of policies adopted that I think are as counterproductive as they can be. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to honor Steve Lovato, an outstanding individual who lost his life in service to others. Steve Lovato was an EMT known for his strong work ethic and his helpfulness to others. His coworkers praised him for his dedication to the job, and he was well recognized for his service to the community. Being an EMT, Steve knew that the financial reward would not be great. He would often face many dangers that are inherent with the job. However, Steve liked doing what was right and worked as an EMT because he wanted to help people. That is why it saddens me to know of the tragic loss of this noble individual. Nearly two months ago, Steve and his partner, Margie Muccie, responded to a 911 call where a man, Paul Freeman, had been injured by a burning home. While trying to give Mr. Freeman medical attention, the mentally unstable individual pulled out a gun and shot and killed Steve. He also killed Roswell Fire Chief, Louis Jones, and his good Samaritan neighbor who had called for help, Randy Houghton. Randy's son was also critically injured by Mr. Freeman. This terrible event has had a profound effect on the community of Roswell. It has also deepened my resolve to address issues that affect the mentally ill. I have long worked to help people who suffer from diseases of the brain, and I believe that better treatment options for Mr. Freeman could have prevented this terrible tragedy. I will continue to seek out the best possible ways to help those that suffer from mental illness. Steve made the ultimate sacrifice in service to others; he lost his life in the line of duty. I am proud to have represented a man like Steve, and I send my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Josephine, and his son, Alex. He went above and beyond the call of duty and showed unparalleled compassion for his fellow man. I am proud to honor him here today and to know of his heroic efforts. I also wish to express my greatest sympathies to the friends and families of Louis Jones and Randy Houghton. These men should also be honored for their efforts in trying to help others.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize National Pecan Month. Each April the nation celebrates the pecan. Used in recipes ranging from pies and candy to soups and salads, the pecan is an important part of New Mexico's diet and economy. New Mexico is the third largest pecan producing State following Georgia and Texas. The Pecan tree is uniquely native to North America. Pecans were first introduced to New Mexico in the early 1900's at the New Mexico State University and then in the Mesilla Valley. In 1932, the late Dean Stahmann Sr. planted the first commercial Pecan orchard, and pecans quickly became an important product of our State. In 2001, the State of New Mexico produced over 50 million pounds of pecans and had approximately 30,000 acres of pecan trees. I am proud of the 15 New Mexico counties which produce pecans. Seven of the leading counties in pecan production include Chavez, Dona Ana, Eddy, Lea, Luna, Otero, and Sierra. Dona Ana county has more than 20,000 acres of pecan trees. Eight others including Bernalillo, Curry, De Baca, Grant, Hidalgo, Lincoln, Quay, and Roosevelt are all growing as valuable pecan producing counties. Pecans not only taste great, but also may provide a way to help American's live healthier lives. A recently released study printed in the Journal of Nutrition reported regular consumption of pecans lowers cholesterol in conjunction with a step I diet of the American Heart Association. I encourage all American's to celebrate National Pecan Month with the people of New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to honor Susan S. Benjamin of Los Alamos, NM, who is in the Nation's Capitol today to be recognized as the 2002 New Mexico Teacher of the Year. She was one of 57 teachers from across the country who were honored by President Bush in a White House ceremony today for excellence in their profession. I am honored to have the opportunity to make a few remarks. For the past 32 years, Susan has been making a difference in children's lives. As an elementary school teacher, she has touched the hearts and minds of her students, while generating interest and enthusiasm in learning. Parents, colleagues, and students all reap praises upon her for the excitement she brings to the classroom. Previously, Susan has been selected as the Los Alamos Public Schools Teacher of the Year. She also received the New Mexico State Award for Excellence in Math Teaching on two separate occasions. Through her dedicated service, Susan has earned a national reputation as an outstanding teacher. She has participated in nationwide Activities Integrating Math and Science, AIMS, workshops, working with other teachers to demonstrate techniques for math and science education. Her efforts to increase student awareness of the importance of science and math education complements many of the ideas expressed in the newly authorized No Child Left Behind Act. Our children need the tools necessary to compete in a marketplace dominated by computers and information technologies that demands a high level of proficiency in math and science. Dedicated teachers like Susan will now have more freedom to develop programs related to technology which will ultimately benefit her students. Susan has helped set the bar for excellence in teacher quality. I am encouraged to know that a teacher of her caliber will now have greater flexibility in providing her students the skills necessary to succeed in tomorrow's marketplace. I am proud to honor Susan Benjamin, our 2002 New Mexico Teacher of the Year. On behalf of the Senate and New Mexico, I thank this fellow New Mexican for making a difference in our children's lives.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Chicano writer Rudolfo Anaya. Often considered ``the godfather of Chicano literature,'' Mr. Anaya writes of Hispanic culture and his experiences in the American Southwest, and especially of life in New Mexico. Born in the small village of Pastura, NM, Mr. Anaya is the fifth child of seven in a devout Catholic family. Growing up, Rudolfo's family spoke Spanish at home sharing stories about their culture and history. His upbringing in the American Southwest taught him to be proud of his Hispanic heritage which is often reflected in his writing. Rudolfo's technique of ``cuento'' stems from this important Hispanic tradition of oral storytelling. Mr. Anaya can be proud of his many accomplishments. It would be hard to find a Chicano studies or literature course that did not include one of Rudolfo's works, such as ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' which won the Premio Quinto Sol national award for Chicano literature. In addition, New Mexicans and readers around the world have enjoyed his novel ``Albuquerque,'' his children's book, ``The Farolitos of Christmas,'' and his other essays and plays. In addition, Rudolfo has worked diligently to inspire and promote other Hispanic writers. He has encouraged publishers to recruit more Hispanic writers and share their stories with the American public. His efforts have also helped Hispanic children find an interest in reading, stimulating a new generation to become more involved in their history and improving their literacy skills. President Bush has chosen to honor Rudolfo Anaya's accomplishments by bestowing on him a National Medal of Arts for 2001. Originally created by Congress in 1984, the National Medal of Arts allows the President to select exceptional individuals for ``their outstanding contributions to the excellence, growth, support, and availability of the arts in the United States.'' Clearly, Rudolfo is one such individual deserving of recognition for his contributions not only to the arts but to Hispanic culture as well. Rudolfo is a living New Mexico treasure, giving voice to the heritage and culture of a proud people. Through his writings we get a chance to enter the heart of the Chicano and Hispanic culture that is part and parcel of who we are, as a whole, as New Mexicans. On behalf of the Senate, I want to thank this fellow New Mexican for the fine work he has done. I am proud of him and commend him on receiving a National Medal of Arts award.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question from the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I would just like to eliminate a little bit of confusion. This bill is going to pass unanimously--or almost--today. And stories are going to say we provided 1,000 new agents for the INS and all the other things you provide in this bill. I wonder if you might tell me, is any of this money appropriated by this bill?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, as I indicated, I do not doubt it has wonderful provisions in it. I have read them. I come from the border, and I confirm that they are all good; our border people would like to have them. I just want to make sure we understand that there is no money provided in this bill. So the public will get the story today or tomorrow that we passed this bill, but 3 or 4 months from now, when the appropriations bill comes that funds these kinds of activities, the Appropriations Committee has to have the money or we will just have another bill that expresses, in beautiful words, what we would like to have happen for our country. Is that about right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. There is nothing tricky about my question. I am not trying to put anyone on the spot. I am just trying to establish that unless the money is appropriated later on by another act of Congress, and signed in another act by the President, we do not have 200 new agents this year in each of the Departments, we don't have the research money that is in this bill for new technology, because this bill does not provide for any money to be spent. If that is not a correct statement, then I withdraw it.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senators.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?

Mr. DOMENICI. A question along with this observation: I say to the Senator, it seems to me that what we do--and what we are doing in this crisis, which is a very big crisis, with the President putting large numbers of billions of dollars in homeland security and saying this is new money--we come along and pass bills that authorize the new programs that he is saying he wants new money for, but the truth of the matter is that very seldom are any existing programs that are being paid for eliminated. So you are going to have a subcommittee of your Committee on Appropriations, maybe two, that are going to fund this authorization bill--or maybe not, or maybe part of it; who knows? But the President had in mind canceling a whole bunch of programs in order to pay for this. And the point I make is, nobody helps with that part of the burden. Nobody carries any weight on trying to make room within the Government. They just pass on to the appropriators a very good, wonderful, new set of authorizations that we have all passed, and we go home and tell our people it is going to help solve the crisis that is before us with reference to taking care of our borders, which are porous and should not even be called borders, they are so bad. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I am supposed to proceed on our side. As the majority whip knows, I have a hearing beginning shortly. The Senator from Pennsylvania wanted to use 2 minutes of my time. Could we let him proceed for 2 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I understand I have up to 15 minutes to speak at this time, is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this side has asked me to ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by the quorum call be equally divided on the unanimous consent the Senator from Nevada just requested.

Mr. DOMENICI. That quorum time be equally divided. That is what we are trying to clear up.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, today we are debating an amendment that, simply put, has a profound impact on our future. This legislation is American jobs and national security. And I will say, what could be more compelling than these two very simple, but profound and obviously important considerations: American jobs and national security. Our Nation, whether we like it or not, whether we should have done something about it sooner or not, moves on oil. We can wish for a future in which there are other options, but it is not here now. Absolutely nothing changes the stark fact that now, and for the foreseeable future, we need expanded supplies of oil, and we are dangerously dependent on foreign sources. Our economy grinds to a halt without oil. Our tremendous military capabilities require oil. Today, for example, it takes 8 times more oil to meet the needs of each American soldier than during World War II. Senator after Senator has noted that we are now importing almost 60 percent of our oil. We all know that the past crises occurred when we were half as much dependent. Those crises occurred when other nations followed their own best interests. That will always be the case. Our interests will not always drive the actions of our neighbors and countries that call themselves our friends. We know that oil is going to become an increasingly precious resource. Supplies are not infinite, but it is not a question of whether we have enough oil for the foreseeable future; but will America be able to be assured--or can we do things that will make us more assured that we will have what we need? We know that oil is getting to be a more precious resource. Obviously, we have become vulnerable to disruptions. That vulnerability has never been larger. But I submit that it will get larger in the future because we are not taking any action, in my opinion, that either short-term or long-term will change that situation. At this instant, we see tremendous instability in the Middle East. We have been getting at least 1 million barrels of oil per day from Iraq. And instability doesn't stop in the Middle East. Whatever it is that is causing instability in our world, has moved over into our hemisphere. Obviously, Venezuela is another very major supplier of the United States. It does not take a genius to look into the cloudiest of crystal balls and forecast that there are likely to be immense shortages of oil in the near future. Some argue that ANWR oil will not be ready for 10 years, while experts note that oil could be flowing in 1 to 2 years. Others will argue that even with the shorter time, ANWR cannot impact today's crisis sufficiently. Sure, it cannot, but it will be better and it will enable us to withstand the next crisis much, much better. In fact, it might postpone one crisis or another crisis in the future. And there is no question that prices at the oil pump are now being impacted by this situation that I have just described with reference to our dependence on the Middle East and other world conditions. Whether you're shopping at the neighborhood gas pump or reading the papers, the signs are all around us, oil is approaching $26 a barrel versus $18 earlier this year. There are headlines such as ``Gas Prices Put Some Budgets Running on Empty,'' and ``The Oil Market is Running Scared.'' Those kinds of signs are plastered in newspapers and magazines. Right here in Washington, gas prices have climbed 20 percent in the past month. Besides giving us more control over our own gas prices, ANWR has other far-reaching impacts. After all, we are just coming out of recession. This is the time when good jobs are especially precious. ANWR oil, valued at $300 billion or more, means thousands upon thousands of jobs for Americans. It is estimated that the President's whole energy package delivers about 700,000 jobs for Americans. Many of those jobs are represented by some of our strongest unions, and we have seen a number of them support the passage of the ANWR legislation. It is obvious to me there will be many jobs in special areas of oilfield exploration, and extensive logistic support will be needed at every step of exploration and development. In one sense, this is a huge jobs opportunity for Americans. These are highly paid jobs. They will go elsewhere. They will not stay in this country. Salaries will be lost as we become more dependent, and without us having the advantage of the ANWR oil activities, the oil money will go elsewhere. We will pay more money to foreign countries rather than keep it for ourselves. We would rush to the floor to vote for any project or program that we could put into effect that would produce the kind of jobs that ANWR will bring. There is no question it is the biggest job-producing activity that anyone could plan during the next decade and perhaps thereafter. If we import more oil, we are encouraging more pumping from places in the world with less stringent environmental regulations. If we import more, what sense does it make to ban our exploration and drilling under rigid environmental mandates and tell the rest of the world to use whatever approaches they want, with whatever environmental damage, just to satisfy our needs and our thirst? We cannot, by defeating ANWR, mandate the environmental conditions that will exist across this world when the oil that would have been ANWR oil is produced by other countries in other places. ANWR critics need to remember that this amendment limits the total footprint of all operations to 2,000 acres, a tiny piece of a gigantic area encompassing more than 20 million acres. That means 99.99 percent of ANWR is untouched by this development. If the same fraction of New Mexico, my home State, was developed as is being proposed in ANWR, it would consume an area roughly the size of the Albuquerque Sunport and Kirkland Air Force Base. That piece of geography in the southwest in New Mexico--the Sunport in Albuquerque plus Kirkland Air Force Base--is the entirety of property that would be used. It would leave no destruction or damage or in any way harm the 2,000 acres. That can be done. For those who wonder whether we can drill that many wells and get that much oil from such a small piece of geography, that is what the law says; that is the only activity the President would be allowed to do if either of the pending amendments were to be adopted. If the same fraction of New Mexico were developed as is being proposed in the ANWR drilling, it would consume the area I have just described. There are some who do not believe that, but I repeat, we have become such technological experts in drilling for oil that, indeed, 2,000 acres will suffice because we no longer drill straight down, perpendicular. We drill horizontally so there will be many wells many distances from this 2,000 acres, but it will not be visible on the surface nor will it impact the surface. We have spent a lot of resources--a lot of businesses invested money and we invested money in the research to permit that, to get us to this point where we can stand in this Chamber and talk about horizontal drilling and about a footprint of 2,000 acres that could drain the entirety of ANWR, the entirety of the 1.5 million acres or at least sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile. If we import more, then we are only encouraging more pumping in places in the world with less stringent regulations, which I have just commented on. If we want to move environmental degradation elsewhere-- which will be minuscule in the United States, in Alaska, in ANWR--then shame on us and doubly shame on us if we, with the same set of events, deny an opportunity to produce it under stringent requirements as we have been referring to for ANWR. It is likely that the ANWR supply would replace about 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia and about 50 years of oil imports from Iraq. Right now, we pay Saddam Hussein about $4.5 billion a year for oil. Do we really want to be dependent on this regime? Do we want it to grow rather than diminish? If we want his regime to grow, then reject the two pending amendments. If we want Saddam Hussein's influence to lessen, then we ought to vote in such a way as to permit American business, American working men and women to proceed to produce on our behalf. To me, this is a very easy issue. We should drill in the United States using our best environmentally friendly technology under our rigid environmental controls. We should drill where we can find our own oil to satisfy our national needs and, at the same time, we should work to develop new technologies that lessen our dependence on oil and petroleum-based fuels. There can be no doubt, ANWR will not solve our problem, but clearly it will help solve our problem, and with that, there are so many pluses in terms of where the wealth will go, where the money will be invested, which workers will get the jobs, which businesses will be part of the very complicated drilling techniques and apparatus that will be on American soil drilling for oil for Americans, instead of part of the international pool produced by some other country, the benefits of which are absolutely nil to the United States. It is an easy issue because this is an American issue and a jobs issue with very little downside. Actually, this should not be an environmental issue. This should not be an issue that oil companies favor. This should not be an issue that the labor unions favor. This is an American issue that we should have come to the floor shoulder to shoulder saying: Let's give it a try. I submit that just as happened in the Prudhoe Bay activity--after lengthy debates and passing by the narrowest of margins, with all that was going to happen environmentally in that area, from what I can tell and on what I have been briefed from people who live there, nothing of significant damage to the environment has occurred--I predict the very same thing will occur if we proceed to drill on the 2,000 acres set aside. I regret, if it turns out this cannot be passed, that the argument apparently will prevail that we should let the environment be degraded in other countries to produce commodities that we desperately need, but we should not produce this product on our own land under far more stringent environmental controls. To me it makes no sense as an environmental issue. To me, it is abandoning hundreds, and hundreds of thousands, of jobs and billions of dollars that are American. We are going to be sending those off to others saying: You enjoy them because, after all, America is so powerful, so strong, we do not need any. I believe this amounts to something very close to economic arrogance on the part of those who promote it. It is kind of like walking out and saying: America is so robust, we do not need to worry about hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars that could be ours instead of some other country in the world. It would seem to this Senator that it is a very clear issue. I, for one, am sorry we have taken so much time, and I do hope when we finish with this issue that we will proceed. I note my colleague from New Mexico has been in this Chamber for an inordinate amount of time trying to get this bill done. I want to say to him, I am not one who wants further delay. When we get this finished, I am for getting on with it. I hope that happens in a few days rather than weeks. The issue has been joined. Both sides have had a good shot at it. Perhaps none of us have understood it correctly, but I think we have all tried. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have discussed with Senator Bingaman a concern with his amendment No. 3016. In particular, I question whether we should structure the renewable portfolio standard to refer to the ``capacity'' of a renewable system or, as done in Senator Bingaman's amendment, to the ``energy generated.'' I think we would simplify compliance by staying with a ``capacity-based'' standard, but I realize that this is a complex issue. I strongly recommend that we return to this issue in conference and carefully evaluate the pros and cons of these two approaches.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the Senate's attention to a matter of tremendous international importance to our efforts to prevent the terrorists' use of weapons of mass destruction. I wish to talk about the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement, a commitment between our two countries to each permanently dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium from nuclear weapons. Thirty- four tons is enough material to make over 4,000 nuclear weapons. I was pleased to help develop aspects of that agreement during several interactions with the Russian leadership of Minatom, both here and in Russia. I was in Moscow with our President in 1998 when the first agreement was initialed. I believe this agreement represents one the most significant accomplishments between the United States and Russia in the last 10 years in our joint efforts to keep the material and technology of weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those that seek to do us harm. The agreement basically commits the United States and Russia to turning 34 tons of plutonium into fuel that can be burned in commercial nuclear power plants. In this way, electricity is produced and the used fuel is left in a condition that makes it unusable in the future for nuclear bombs. Facilities will be built in both the United States and Russia to perform this work. Our Government completed a 4-year process to decide what type of facilities was needed for this disposition mission, and where those facilities should be built. The United States considered four sites, Washington State, Idaho, Texas, and South Carolina, and after a vigorous competition in which the State of South Carolina lobbied very hard to get the mission, the decision was made to site the disposition facilities in South Carolina. Now, South Carolina is hesitating. The plutonium disposition agreement is being imperiled by the unwillingness of the State of South Carolina to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy on taking shipment of the plutonium identified for disposition and building the required facilities. It is appropriate for the Governor of South Carolina to insist on every assurance that his State will be treated fairly, and will not simply become the permanent storage site for unwanted nuclear material if for some reason the plutonium agreement should fall apart. But the Governor has done that, he has succeeded, he has won. He should be congratulated. The Governor has gotten the Secretary of Energy to provide South Carolina all of the assurances they never got from the Clinton administration, including full funding for the MOX program, a strict construction schedule, and a number of mechanisms, including statutory language and other measures, to ensure that the agreement will be legally enforceable. However, the Governor is apparently insisting that this matter should be thrown to the courts and resolved through the mechanism of a court ordered consent decree. Putting the courts in charge of executive branch non-proliferation and foreign policy affairs will slow our ability to meet our goals of reducing Russian nuclear material stockpiles, and will allow others who are opposed to the program's goals have a voice in their implementation. Ultimately, I fear America's national security will be undermined. Further delay in reaching agreement with South Carolina will undermine the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement. We must move forward with the construction of the MOX plant that will be used to dispose of the plutonium at issue in order to honor our commitments to the Russian Federation. That will be very difficult, if not impossible, in the face of litigation from the Governor of the State where the plant will be located. The Russians will not go along to reduce their plutonium inventory unless we do. A failure in this program means more material may end up on the black market where terrorists could have access to it. For 50 years now the State of South Carolina, like my home State of New Mexico, has hosted some of the most important facilities within our nuclear weapons complex. For 50 years, tens of thousands of the sons and daughters of South Carolina proudly toiled in relative anonymity so that the rest of the country, and the world, could enjoy the peace provided by our nuclear shield during the long, dark days of the Cold War. I am proud of the citizens of South Carolina and their unique service for our county. Today, the children and grandchildren of the previous generations of South Carolina heroes have a tremendous opportunity to almost literally, as the prophet Isaiah said, ``beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.'' They stand on the cusp of a grand new opportunity to lead the world community in converting nuclear weapons to electric power while at the same time keeping the material out of the hands of would be terrorists. We must go forward with this important agreement. Thus, I will close today by urging both the Secretary of Energy and the Governor of South Carolina to work together to resolve their differences, move out together, and not threaten this effort by resorting to litigation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Election Reform. Today is a good day for this country and the manner in which we hold federal elections. For several weeks after the last vote was cast in the 2000 elections, Americans were inundated with image after image of ballots being counted and recounted. As the election was further scrutinized, numerous stories of voter fraud were brought to the nation's attention. While the list of problems encountered during the last election is seemingly unending, the point is that there are improvements to the system that must be made. Today, we have taken a very big, very important step in making sure that this system works better. After all, we have no more important right as American citizens than the right to vote. In this bill, we set forth some very important standards and procedures to protect this right. We will require systems to permit a voter to verify his ballot choices and correct errors before the ballot is cast so that the voter can be certain that his vote will be for the candidate of his choice. In the case where an individual claims to be a registered voter who is eligible to vote but isn't on the official registration list, that individual will be allowed to cast a provisional vote. The appropriate election official must then verify the claim of eligibility. If the claim is verified, that vote will be counted. There will then be a free access system that the voter can use to check to see whether that vote was counted, and if not, the system will give the reason for that decision. These measures, and others in the bill, are intended to make certain that the people who are eligible to vote are given that right. The other side of the coin is to make certain that people who are not eligible to vote are prevented from voting. One of the things that this bill does is require each state to implement an interactive, computerized, statewide, voter registration list. This will also help to make certain that noone is able to vote more than once. One of the concerns that many states would have had with this piece of legislation is the cost involved in implementing these reforms. Recognizing these concerns, we have authorized $3.5 billion to make certain that the states do not bear the burden of these reforms. This legislation represents the hard work of many members from both sides of the aisle. It is truly a testament to the good that can come from bi-partisanship and I commend all of the Senators who worked so hard to make this happen.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand we have the regular order, and the Senator who is supposed to speak is not here.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a very special anniversary that many in my home state of New Mexico will take time to remember this weekend. Saturday, April 13th will mark the sixty-year anniversary of the Bataan Death March. Some eighteen-hundred men from the 200th Coast Anti-Artillery Aircraft and the 515th Coast Anti-Artillery, Aircraft, New Mexico National Guard Units were involved in that infamous march. I do not think words can fully describe the bravery of these veterans and the horrific conditions they endured. In all, more than seventy thousand American and Filipino prisoners of war were captured in April 1942 and force-marched to a Japanese work camp. Suffering from starvation and physical abuse, more than seven thousand died and only about fifty-six thousand reached the camp. Thousands later died from malnutrition and disease. Of those eighteen-hundred from the New Mexico Brigade, fewer than nine-hundred returned. On Saturday, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, we will dedicate the Bataan Death March Memorial in memory and in honor of these men. And because New Mexicans made up such a large proportion of those prisoners involved in the march, this anniversary and dedication ceremony have stirred many emotions throughout my state. For those survivors and their families, there is a great sense of pride. Of course, there is much lingering pain, as well. But by establishing a memorial in their honor, we build a bridge to that emotion--a bridge that will allow all generations of Americans to imagine the suffering these men endured, and to remember, forever, their true valor. For all Americans who are unable to travel to the Southwest to see the beautiful bronze statue portraying an American soldier and a Filipino soldier comforting an injured American comrade during the midst of that seven-day march, I would encourage you to take the time to learn about the horrors these men suffered--to learn their story. It is both sobering and inspiring, and I pay tribute to their heroism today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.