Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about campaign finance reform. I want to express my concerns about this legislation and explain why I decided to vote for it in spite of those concerns. I believe there are problems with the way we finance campaigns in this country. Many Americans feel there is too much money in politics. They believe this money is a corrupting influence on the politicians they send to represent them in Washington, D.C. Reports of politicians taking money from foreign sources, while already illegal, has served to strengthen the perception that money rules the political process. The large number of extremely wealthy candidates who spend large amounts of their own money to finance their campaigns reinforces this perception. Many people believe that candidates are attempting to buy their way into office. For that reason, I am very pleased that the version we will be voting on contains my wealthy-candidate provision. By enacting this common sense provision, the playing field will be leveled for candidates who are not able to spend unlimited amounts of their own money. Instead, this legislation will raise the limits on contributions to their campaigns in proportion to the amount of personal money that the wealthy candidate spends. Reports of large donations by corporations and unions lead many to believe that access to politicians is for sale only to the highest bidders. Many will argue that a few corrupt politicians are the problem rather than the system. I believe this is true, but for many disenchanted voters, perception is reality. Because people are disgusted with the system, many choose not to participate. Our system is lesser for that lack of participation. It is for these reasons that I have decided to vote for Campaign Finance Reform. When I voted for McCain-Feingold in the Spring of last year, I did so with reservations. I also expressed my hope that the House would improve on it and, if it came back to the Senate, we would have an opportunity to clear up any remaining problems. While this legislation did pass the House, and the House did improve it in some ways, the House did not address all of my concerns. In the original Senate-passed version, we added the Levin amendment so State parties could compete with other outside groups. Unfortunately, the House weakened this provision, and now the State parties will be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to promoting candidates and issues. I think it is only fair that these two groups should be able to compete on a level playing field. An additional concern I have with this legislation is the ``Coordination'' provision. As this legislation currently defines it, there will be a great deal of uncertainty about what is considered ``coordination'' between a candidate and parties or outside groups. I believe we should keep the current rule which requires agreement or formal collaboration to establish ``coordination.'' Perhaps my greatest concern is about the constitutionality of the provision that prohibits ``electioneering communication'' within the last 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. There is very little doubt that the constitutionality of this and other provisions will be challenged shortly after this legislation is signed into law. Fortunately, the expedited review clause requires anyone who challenges the constitutionality of this legislation file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel will decide the case and any appeal will be directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. This expedited review process will ensure that all questions about the constitutionality of this legislation will be resolved swiftly so that any unconstitutional provisions are quickly stricken. Normally, the Senate would have the opportunity to make the small changes that most agree would make this legislation much more effective. I am disappointed that the most adamant Senate proponents of this legislation bunkered down to prevent any improvements. I understand that they are concerned about the success of this legislation should it go to back to the House or to conference. Unfortunately, this concern will probably prevent us from doing as good a job as we should have. This leaves us with two disappointing choices: send an imperfect bill to the President or do nothing at all. I will vote for this legislation because I believe in this instance we must at least take a step forward.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman, I would not keep us here this evening, but I will be busy in the morning because of a markup, so I will use some time tonight. First, before we are finished with our debate and votes, I will return to the Chamber and give a rather detailed analysis of the positive things in this bill for nuclear power for the future of our country and the world. While I mention that, I thank Senator Bingaman again for his leadership on Price-Anderson. We have overcome one major hurdle. It is clear that you could not have been considering significant additions to the utility electric generating powerplants that would be powered by nuclear if we had not done that. But there are many things in this bill that will cause those who think nuclear power can, indeed, be part of the American scene to say that Congress is recognizing that and is paving the way for innovation, new approaches to nuclear power, which may, indeed, help us enormously in terms of ambient air quality and achieving minimal emissions in the generation of electricity. But I come to the Chamber tonight as one who looks at my record with reference to research on renewables. I think I have a pretty good record. Perhaps it would be fair to say that with all the support we have given to these kinds of sources of energy, we have not done as well as we should have. But during the 6 years I chaired the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, we provided well over $2 billion in support for research just in that one bill alone. There has been real progress on renewables, especially in the cost of wind power over time. I hope a lot more progress will be made as time progresses. But I have very great concerns with the imposition of this renewable standard on the American public. The current bill, as I understand it, requires that 10 percent of all electricity be derived from new renewable sources by the year 2020 or be subject to a 3-cent-per-kilowatt-hour penalty. I don't believe this standard can be met without causing significant increases in electric prices. If you were going to increase electric prices to get more electricity, that would be one thing. But I think we are going to increase all electric costs because of the mandate of 10 percent of these renewable sources that are enumerated in this bill. Remember that this mandate applies only to the privately owned utility companies. It does not apply to public ones, as I understand it. So it will just be a mandate on the privately owned companies in this country. At least in my office, there has been a bit of an outcry over this proposal, including a concern from the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the principal utility company, and indications that to meet this requirement they believe it is going to cost New Mexico users considerably more money. I met with them again today. They still believe that to meet this 10 percent mandate, the utility company costs in New Mexico will have to go up, and go up substantially. To put it simply, utilities have to provide power, whether the sun shines and the wind blows or not. The costs of Senator Bingaman's amendment are partly driven by the way the renewable portfolio is structured. We have discussed this with him and with his staff. One of my strongest concerns involves the wording in the amendment that focuses on energy generated by solar and wind renewable sources. To put it simply, utilities have to provide power, which I have just indicated, whether the Sun shines or the wind blows or not. Solar and wind, by their very nature, are intermittent sources of power. On average, these sources deliver about one-third of their capacity as actual energy. Under this bill, they are required to produce 10 percent of the electricity. But as I am indicating now, it is not based upon capacity but rather on energy produced and used. That means you will have to pay three times as much to get to the 10 percent. Now these renewables account for a small fraction of the portfolio. A utility can fairly easily find some other small source to cover those days when you don't have Sun or wind. But as that renewable fraction climbs, the utilities are placed in the position of having to build the renewable source to meet this mandate, and then, on top of that, build a stable baseload capacity from some other stable source to use when the Sun and the wind don't cooperate. This leads to what everyone should understand to be a double whammy on the ratepayer. I could even argue that it is a triple whammy on the ratepayer because they not only have to pay for the renewable capacity--that is only useful about one-third of the time--and the baseload capacity to cover the other two-thirds of the time, but they also have to pay the cost differential for renewable power. Even with wind, which is the most economical of the renewables, the cost differential is at least 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, translating in terms of costs today to the American public of at least $11 billion annually. Somebody will pay for it. By the year 2020, the annual cost will be what I have just described. It will be parts of that $11 billion as we move up, because you won't just wait and go to 2020 and start producing, you will clearly have to start using the solar, or wind, or whichever energy is allowed under this amendment. Another way of estimating it is the penalty of 3 cents per kilowatt- hour that is imposed for the failure to meet the standard and to figure that as a cost. I have tried to do that. In New Mexico, this would lead to a figure as high as $40 million a year in additional electricity costs. States such as ours are already reeling from unfunded mandates such as the arsenic standard. They don't need more help from the Federal Government to extract higher electricity rates to meet new standards, unless there is no other way to get America's energy crisis--to control it and to preserve and protect our ambient air. I believe there are other ways. I believe we can change this amendment so it won't be so onerous. I will be discussing that prospect with the manager of the bill, but not this evening. I will not offer any amendment with reference to changing the structure, but I will talk about it. Perhaps it can be considered before we leave the floor or in conference as something that will be looked at to make it more realistic instead of this capacity and energy dichotomy which I have just explained. We can greatly simplify the planning of utilities and minimize the substantial burden of this new standard by simply switching from an ``energy-generated'' basis to a ``capacity'' basis. That would make it easy to measure. It would produce a modicum of reasonableness in this bill. It would be completely predictable. When a company puts in a megawatt of wind capacity, the capacity is known, even though the power derived from the resource is not known. It is probably only around 300 kilowatts. Let me repeat that when a company puts in a megawatt of wind capacity, that capacity is known, even though the power derived from the resource is not known. And it is probably only 300 kilowatts, one- third of the credit I have just described. When I talk about the intermittent nature of renewables, I hope my colleagues know this is no exaggeration. I have seen the actual data from a large wind farm in Minnesota. At times it does a great job, but there are times when that same farm has to draw power from the grid to power its instruments because they are inoperative when the wind hasn't blown for a certain amount of time. Thus, they are a user of energy during some period of time when the wind is down. It is not as simple as people think. If this is going to be implemented using the definitions in this bill, it will be extremely difficult. Interpretations will have to be made. I believe before too long we ought to straighten that out, make it far more intelligible, more simple, and something that is more rational. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Girl Scouts of America on celebrating 90 years of making a difference in the lives of millions of girls and young women. Founded by Juliette Gordon Low on March 12, 1912, the Girl Scouts of America has a long and storied tradition of providing girls with the tools they will need to be successful members of our communities. America is a better country because this organization has led the way in preparing girls for leadership roles. I have long supported efforts and organizations that help our young people deal with the very unique challenges they face. The Girl Scouts is an organization that is doing just that. In fact, that is exactly the mission of the Girl Scouts. I am proud of the efforts that the Girl Scouts has made in understanding and addressing the needs of girls. As you know, I believe that we need to do better in teaching math and science to our young people. This is particularly true when it comes to our girls and young women. I am told that women constitute only 22 percent of our scientists and engineers in spite of making up 46 percent of our work force. The Girl Scouts is working successfully to change this through the Girls at the Center program, the National Science Partnership, the Elliott Wildlife Values Project, and one of the newest initiatives, Girls Go Tech. These programs have been very successful in helping girls realize their full potential in the areas of Math and Science and I look forward to the continued success of these programs. Another feature of the Girl Scouts that I am excited about is its volunteer component. I believe that the Girl Scouts is exactly the type of organization that the President has referred to in his call for more volunteers. I don't think anyone could disagree when I say that this organization is only successful because of the efforts of its volunteers. Over 99 percent of the adults involved in the Girl Scouts volunteer their time. In closing, I want to thank the women who came by my office yesterday to share with me the exciting things that the Girl Scouts of America is doing in my state of New Mexico. Based on the quality of women who made the long trip to our nation's capitol, I am confident in predicting much continued success for this organization in our state and in this great country.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I will comment for a couple of minutes regarding what we went through in the last 20 minutes. I note the presence of the majority whip on the floor, for whom I have the greatest respect and total trust in terms of fair treatment. Regarding the point of order raised on this amendment, which no one knew about until it was raised, from what I can tell, on our side of the aisle--it would have been a good and fair thing had it been called to the attention of the proponent of the amendment. I assure Members, had the opponents of the amendment prevailed on the point of order, on this particular amendment, all one had to do was change it. Instead of directed spending, it would be subject to an appropriation and it would no longer be subject to a point of order, from what I have been informed in my conversations with the Parliamentarian. So that means we would just go through two votes because somebody thought making a point of order on the Budget Act would have gotten rid of that amendment. It would not have. Had that vote been 59 instead of 60, we would fix the amendment, re-offer it, and do what I just said by way of altering it. That could have all been understood between enlightened staffers and Senators who would like to do that. I don't think the Senators were aware of it. I just raise it because it shocked me that this very important amendment, which I worked on and participated in, was subject to a point of order. I didn't know it or I would have advised them to fix it. I yield the floor. I say to Senator Bingaman, no aspersions on you whatsoever on that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for these two amendments. I am a cosponsor of both. On a bigger scale than that, we are both from oil and gas States. Yet the Senator has taken a position that it is not just oil and gas that make up the future for the United States. We have to look at a variety of alternatives. The Senator has done a superb job working on nuclear issues. The two proposed amendments on nuclear are clearly relevant. We are moving ahead in those areas in the appropriations process. The Senator will have the assurance that both are covered by appropriations if, indeed, Senator Bingaman and the others bring it back from conference with the amendments.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment with reference to an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce an amendment creating a new DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. This new Office would organize a research program to explore new, improved national strategies for spent nuclear fuel. Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K., and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms. It is too bad we did not start with this emphasis and organization within the last 15 or 20 years. But we were on a path that said under no conditions would we do this. We thought it would add to the nonproliferation potential. We thought we would set an example and nobody would do it, so we would not produce any additional plutonium. What happened is we stayed in our rut, thinking it was going to be worldwide, while other countries decided ours was a rather imprudent policy and they have proceeded. I just enumerated the countries that have done that. I support continued progress at Yucca Mountain and appreciate the President's decision to move ahead toward licensing of it as our Nation's first permanent repository for high level waste. But, I have frequently suggested that our single-minded focus on this ``solution'' for spent fuel does not serve our Nation well. It is simply not obvious that permanent disposal of spent fuel is in the best interests of all our citizens. It's even less obvious to me that we should equate the terms ``spent fuel'' and ``waste.'' Since Yucca Mountain can't accommodate all the spent fuel from our current generation of nuclear plants, we clearly either need a better solution or more repositories. Given the level of local public support enjoyed by Yucca Mountain, I don't think any of us should relish the prospect of creating more Yucca Mountains. Depending on our future demands and options for electricity, we may need to recover the tremendous energy that remains in spent fuel. And strong public opposition to disposal of spent fuel, with its long-term radio toxicity, may preclude use of repositories that simply accept and permanently store spent fuel. If the research program led by this new office is successful, we can recover the residual energy in spent fuel. And we could produce a final waste form that is no more toxic, after a few hundred years, than the original uranium ore. I was very pleased that the President specifically endorsed these studies of reprocessing and transmutation in the national energy policy. I am well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically practical now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore, I fully recognize that it must only be done with careful attention to proliferation issues. But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for a future evaluation that may determine that we are too hasty today to treat spent fuel as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing it as an energy resource for future generations. We do not have the knowledge today to make this decision. This amendment establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide real data for such a future decision. This research program would have other benefits. We may want to reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition. This amendment requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent fuel be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. It encourages the Department to seek international cooperation. I know, based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are eager to join with us in an international study of spent fuel options. It requires that we focus on research programs that minimize proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires that we study the economic implications of each technology. With this new Office and its research program, the United States will be prepared, some years in the future, to make the most intelligent decision regarding the future of nuclear energy as one of our major power sources. Maybe at that time, we'll have other better energy alternatives and decide that we can move away from nuclear power. Or we may find that we need nuclear energy to continue and even expand its current contribution to our nation's power grid. In any case, this research will provide the framework to guide Congress in these future decisions. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I also want to speak briefly to three other amendments on nuclear energy issues, presented by my colleagues, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Craig. I greatly appreciate their interest in this important technology. I strongly support these additional amendments and am a cosponsor of each one. Ms. Landrieu has two amendments. One notes the important role that hydrogen may play in future transportation strategies for the nation, either directly as a fuel or in fuel cells. Either of these approaches could lead to a transportation sector that is virtually emission free. This is a great vision, but it depends on, among several challenges, identification of a cheap reliable supply of hydrogen. Hydrogen can either be made from water using electricity, or from several chemical processes involving heat. Senator Landrieu's amendment asks that the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative specifically explore the use of nuclear reactors for hydrogen production. Reactors are well suited to such a challenge. They could supply electricity in off-peak hours. Or, some types of advanced reactors would provide an ample heat resource. In fact, in Japan, their research on one form of advanced reactor is focused on hydrogen production. Her second amendment encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to explore licensing issues, which may arise with advanced reactor designs. Her legislation would allow the NRC to pursue this research without tapping income collected from licensees, through use of appropriated funds. This is a good idea, and one that is already encouraged in the appropriations process. Mr. Craig's nuclear energy amendment authorizes the Nuclear Power 2010 program, as proposed by the Administration to begin in fiscal year 2003. This builds on and expands the work pursued in the Nuclear Energy Technology Program that has been funded for the last two years. Under this new program the DOE would seek industrial proposals for joint venture teams to participate, including development of business arrangements for building and operating new plants in the United States. I appreciate that it would pursue development of the two most promising classes of advanced reactors, either water- or gas-cooled systems. Mr. Craig's inclusion of international collaboration is also critical, just as I want to encourage such participation in development of improved strategies for spent fuel. Many countries have strong nuclear energy programs, we can achieve mutual goals faster and cheaper if we work together, just as is now happening with the ten-nation effort toward the Generation IV reactor. I share the vision of Mr. Craig that the Nuclear Power 2010 program will result in a new reactor in this country in the next decade. That will be an important step in demonstrating to our citizens and to the world that the United States is not going to be left by the wayside while other countries pursue this vital energy source. Tomorrow or next week, whichever is most accommodating, I will take the floor and tell the American people what is in this bill regarding the future for nuclear energy. Many things have already been adopted and put in the bill by the sponsors, but we now have, with this amendment before the Senate or put in the bill, all of the amendments that Senators who have been following and working in this area thought were important to its future. They will now be encapsulated in this with the adoption of this, which is our last one. nuclear waste

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's view. I will be a conferee on this bill. I assure the Senator that I will resist any attempt to open the conference to discussion of waste issues. I would also like to note that, as stated in the amendment, the national laboratories will play strong roles in this work. In fact, from our positions on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations, let's work together to ensure their participation. I thank Senator Bingaman in advance of agreeing to this for his help on it, for what he has done in the bill with reference to not only the Price-Anderson, which he took the lead on even though it was not his amendment, but all the other provisions he has put in that will create a level playing field and modernize Americans' ability to utilize nuclear power if they choose, since it will not pollute the environment and can be part of a national program to do that.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Mr. President, are we still on the bill and on an amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no amendment to offer at this time, but I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 7 minutes as in morning business for some comments on the economy, which is indirectly related to the energy bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and thank the Senate. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, in my view, the recession that started last March is over and the economy is in recovery. The unemployment rate has dropped 2 straight months and is now at 5.5 percent. Clearly, it was thought that the last unemployment report would show that unemployment went up. That is what all the experts thought, even if we were beginning a recovery. So for it to belie that and come down is a very powerful indicator that, indeed, the recovery has started. New orders and production are expanding the manufacturing sector. Excluding automobiles, retail sales have increased for 5 straight months. Good news. We ought to be thankful that the recession was not deeper or longer than it was. It now appears that the peak in the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent in December. The peak was 5.8 percent, and that was a lot higher than anyone would like. No one likes to watch the unemployment rate go up. But we ought to recognize that 5.8 percent is the lowest peak for any recession since 1945. Indeed, we have grown accustomed to having extremely high unemployment; and it is good that it did not go as high as it has in the past, as we went through this set of impacts that I believe are behind us. Why was the recession so shallow? Why didn't it linger on, as many thought it would? In my view, a number of factors played a role. First, there was a very high rate of productivity growth. Usually during a recession, productivity growth is about zero. During this recession, productivity growth was 2.7 percent, which is faster than we usually get during economic expansion. And, indeed, the last quarter of reporting would say that the productivity growth was 5 percent. It is so high and so robust that it permits a Senator such as this one to even question whether that could be right. But it seems to be the right number based on the same information that we have been gathering before, that we have been using before, and that is rather incredible from the standpoint of the positive. In a typical recession, real compensation tends to stagnate along with productivity. Businesses do not increase compensation when workers are not getting more productive. But in this high productivity recession, real compensation, believe it or not, has been relatively strong, not adversely affected by the recession. In other words, if you did not lose your job, you were much better off during this recession than during previous ones. In turn, increases in compensation helped support the consumer demand which, in a very real sense, fueled the fires in opposition to the recession and the factors that were feeding it. The second factor that made it milder than expected was monetary policy. The Fed started cutting interest rates 2 months before the recession began and reduced rates to 1.75, the lowest since 1961. In total, the Fed reduced rates 11 times last year. By contrast, during the last recession, the Federal Reserve reacted more slowly and much less forcefully. Short-term rates were still 6 percent when the recession ended the last time we had a recession. The third factor was fiscal policy. The tax cut enacted last year could not have come at a better time. No one knows exactly how much it contributed to what I have just described, but obviously it had some positive impact. It was there at the right time, under the right circumstances, and it is one of the few times in modern history that a Congress has enacted a piece of legislation on time, in a timely manner, rather than too late and too little. There are those who would argue that the last tax incentive to help with the recession bill was too late. I believe that is the case. Nonetheless, those changes are all good changes that will perhaps help the economy stay in this upward moving direction in which we find ourselves. By using tax rebates as downpayments on marginal tax rate cuts, we put money in the pockets of people and convinced them that there were more tax cuts to come. I believe just doing the rate cuts alone would not have helped the economy as much as they did in that format with those understandings possible by our people. The fourth factor is financial flexibility. Unlike the situation 10 years ago or the situation in Japan today, our banking system is very sound, and so are our credit markets. Firms have a wide variety of options when they want to raise funds, and households have been able to refinance their homes at lower interest rates. That has put many billions of dollars in the pockets of our people, when the refinancing occurred. Some of that money went into purchases and acquisitions that our people made by using some or all of the refinance bonus they received because their equity was long. Lower energy prices contributed to this occurring. Now we are noticing that they are beginning to go up again, rather dramatically-- in fact, too much. We must send a signal to those who would arbitrarily do that--and they are--that we are busy producing an energy bill in both the House and Senate that will have an impact on that kind of capriciousness they exercise against our people through the economy they adversely affect. Does this mean we have nothing to worry about regarding the economy? I don't think so. Another strike by terrorists could again do a great deal of harm both to investors and to consumers and, in particular, to confidence. Probably it would be even a little more lasting than the last one because the strike on September 11 was obviously a total surprise. Another strike of that magnitude or bigger would prove we are vulnerable even when we are more vigilant. We also have to be concerned about the flow of oil from the Middle East. There are those who would like to see a much wider area of conflagration in that region, if for no other reason than to hurt the United States. We have to apply our best efforts to ensure that this does not happen. But apart from these potential negative shocks, the economy seems to be recovering and looks poised to enter a period of quite respectable economic growth--not a boom, but that is all right. Now it is our job to make sure we continue to focus on policies that will maximize the long-term growth potential of our economy, including strong national defense, homeland security, energy independence, as much as we can do, and free trade. We also need to start paying attention to simplifying and streamlining our Tax Code. It will not wait forever. Together these policies will put us in the best position to face the challenges ahead and improve the living standards of the American people.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002, H.R. 3090. This economic stimulus bill has been long in coming. I am happy this day has finally arrived, but I know those unemployed workers and their families, who became unemployed after the events of September 11, and who will soon see their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits expire, will be even more pleased that we have not forgotten them. We will provide those whose benefits will soon expire an additional 13 weeks of assistance, and I truly believe that within this additional time period, they will return to full employment. There are clear signs that the economy is recovering, but for those nearly 1.4 million long-term unemployed workers, there is no solace to be found until they are working again and earning incomes in the private sector. I believe the provisions of this bill that will also provide assistance to small and large businesses in the form of 30 percent special depreciation allowances, combined with conforming AMT depreciation rules and a 5-year carryback of net operation loss provisions will help to increase those employment opportunities for the unemployed so they do not have to depend on further extensions of unemployment insurance. I am also pleased that this bill follows through--as the Administration promised it would--to help fulfill the promise of providing over $21 billion in assistance to New York City. The expansion of Worker Opportunity Tax Credits to certain employees in New York City, and special credits to property placed in the Liberty Zone along with other provisions of this bill will continue to assist that city on the road to recovery. I am pleased that the bill also extends $12 billion in various tax provisions that expired or will soon expire including the Worker Opportunity Tax Credits, Welfare to Work Credits, a 100 percent limitation on percentage depletion for oil and gas from marginal wells, and a provision I have championed that would penalize in the form of a tax those groups health plans that fail to comply with mental health parity requirements. There are other provisions in this bill that will allow teachers to deduct classroom expenditures and exclusions for foster care payments to qualified placement agencies. The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families supplemental grants and contingency funds for states such as mine that have seen an increase in population is needed help to some hard pressed state budgets. This bill will become law. President Bush who has pressed for congressional action will sign this needed legislation. It is not everything he wanted, and I remain convinced that the proposal I advanced last winter to provide for a payroll tax holiday would have provided additional needed stimulus. But nonetheless this bill will still inject over $50 billion into the economy immediately and over $40 billion next year. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, the majority and minority leader in bringing this issue finally to a conclusion. It is the right thing to do, it is the right thing for those displaced and out of work today.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that early in the discussion of the energy bill an amendment on Price-Anderson extension is before the Senate. I am also very pleased that it has so many cosponsors and that it is very bipartisan, in particular on the issue of nuclear power and its role in America and the world's future. If we are looking for the energy of the future and if we are looking to have clean air, obviously nuclear power has to be looked at. I am grateful that today Senator Bingaman, the manager of the bill and chairman of the committee, is a cosponsor of the Voinovich amendment. It also has a number of other Senators as cosponsors, all of whom from time to time have expressed great interest in nuclear energy. I also would like to commend the manager of the bill, even though we didn't mark up all the way through the committee. Senator Bingaman's staff, the majority staff, are fully aware of the nuclear power issues that confront our country. If there are Senators who wonder why there are not a series of amendments on nuclear power and its future that are going to be offered--there will be two or three--it is because this bill contains general type language that will permit nuclear power to be a player in the future. If, in fact, there are utility companies here and elsewhere in the world privately and publicly owned that want to produce nuclear power because of its efficiency and, equally important, because clean electricity is produced, and if we are worried about underdeveloped countries developing and using a lot of energy, and because America needs more energy over the next 20 or 30 years, it is good that we have not locked out the option of nuclear energy. There are some things that could be said about nuclear power in terms of the shortage we have found ourselves in. Just the past year, we found that of all the power sources in the country, the cheapest after hydropower is, and has been for some time, nuclear power. Per unit of electricity, the cheapest power generation of any major size in America has been nuclear power. Nuclear powerplants have gone without incident or accident for years. As a matter of fact, they have increased productive capacity in the neighborhood of from 70 to 75 percent of capacity to the low 90s for this entire period of time when we needed more energy because we were in the position as a nation of being sort of ambivalent about our energy supply. We weren't quite sure where we were going. There are also some exciting occurrences in terms of the next generation of nuclear powerplants. Perhaps before we finish we will have time to discuss events that are occurring around the world. Even American companies are thinking about nuclear plants in terms of future supply of electricity. The future is very bright. New technology will make nuclear power safer, if that can be. It will make it cheaper. It will permit us to locate nuclear powerplants more easily. They won't have to be the large-megawatt plants. They can be small and rather mobile plants built much more easily than in the past, and with far less permit time with the kind of work we have to do in that regard. Already the United States is ahead of the crisis. We have begun to build back into our Department of Energy some significant nuclear activities. We have had an Energy Department during the last 25 years when the Department was acting as if it were embarrassed about nuclear power and didn't even want it to be part of the Department of Energy. It is back, and we are now spending some money every year to help generate enthusiasm among engineers and those who would join the corps of experts in physics and chemistry and the like who will work on nuclear powerplants in the future. In producing this bill, Senator Bingaman took many of the things we had appropriated and made them permanent law with reference to the future of nuclear power. I will insert in the Record at a later time, rather than itemize them now, the numerous areas where the bill already takes into consideration the need for us to put nuclear power on a neutral footing with other kinds of power and to see if we can't come out winners both as to energy and as to the environment. So I want to state my very strong support for the renewal of Price- Anderson, which is going to expire later this year--I think in August. It has been extended by Congress three times since becoming law in 1957. Price-Anderson provides a framework for payment of public liability claims for any accident at a commercial nuclear powerplant. This law is vital to ensure that our taxpayers continue to receive the benefits of nuclear energy and allows the industry to consider the construction of new plants. The Price-Anderson amendment, as it is structured--the one that is pending--takes care of and provides coverage for future plants. Some have wanted to cover the past but not the future. I am very pleased, and am certain that those who think there is a new day for the production of energy in the United States ahead, and that it might involve nuclear power, are also strongly supportive and delighted that this amendment is the broad amendment that also covers the future, not just the past. Many bills pending before the Senate incorporate renewal of Price- Anderson. As I indicated, I have introduced a bill, S. 472, which contained renewal provisions. I was very pleased that 18 cosponsors joined me in that bill. Earlier bills from Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski had also incorporated renewal. This renewal amendment should enjoy strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I am very pleased that it will receive strong support because that in and of itself sends a signal that was not around 10 or 15 years ago when we thought we had an abundance of energy and the supply was not a problem. There was a small cadre of those who did not like nor want us involved in nuclear power. They prevailed. It would appear that we are moving in the direction of a neutral approach and that nuclear power will have to prove itself alongside all the other energy sources as being efficient and safe and the kind of power that we would truly like to have in our country, and it would be good for the world. In addition to coverage of commercial nuclear plants, Price-Anderson enables companies to accept the challenges that are involved in the cleanup of past nuclear weapons activities without charging the Government for insurance for coverage of very large possible, although highly unlikely, claims. It assures the availability of funds to provide prompt compensation to any member of the public who is harmed by nuclear activities. Without renewal, no new nuclear powerplants would be covered and progress on the cleanup of weapons activities could indeed be seriously jeopardized. That will not be the case once we have reported out a bill. Hopefully, before this year ends, the Senate and the House will find a way to do that. Since taxpayer funds are not used to pay claims resulting from a nuclear incident, there is no ``subsidy'' to industry, as some claim. Over the last 43 years of Price-Anderson protection, the insurance pools, never the Federal Government, have paid claims totaling $180 million. Price-Anderson, with its risk-pooling among all nuclear companies, provides a far greater measure of certainty to the public for any liabilities that any one company could provide. Again, I appreciate Senator Bingaman's work on the basic bill, the underlying bill, as it pertains to nuclear power and various activities that will bring it into the future and line itself up along with other major energy sources not only for America but for the world. One area involves the appropriate treatment for nonprofit contractors. We have agreed that these contractors should have some degree of liability, but we have carefully limited their liability to the fee they are receiving at the time of any penalty. Without such a limitation, nonprofits could undertake a contracting role with the Department, but they would have to charge excessive fees to the Government and, obviously, would not be awarded any kind of work. There is a second provision for the treatment of modular reactors. When Price-Anderson was first drafted, it was assumed that all commercial reactors would be very large, maybe 1,000 megawatts or even more. But lately, there is growing interest in very small powerplants that might utilize modular construction and deliver much less power, perhaps only 100 megawatts per module. These small plants have some very interesting features, of which the most important is the ability to make them absolutely safe against meltdown incidents. Yes, that is a reality. That is what those who are inventing and putting together these new modular constructed powerplants, with new technology, will be able to do. They will not, by their own physics, be able to have a meltdown. I appreciate that this version of an extended Price-Anderson law provides equitable treatment for modular reactors to ensure that the act becomes viable in the future and is not a disincentive to considering new technology of the kind that is exciting many people. The renewal of Price-Anderson is one of the key actions needed to ensure that nuclear energy continues to provide clean, safe power for our Nation. Again, I am grateful for the leadership shown by the chairman of the committee. I am hoping that before this year is out, we will come out of conference with a Price-Anderson that is intact and that contains the language that is before the Senate today. We will have done something worthwhile. For those who wonder if anything is happening on this energy bill that is good and healthy and salutary and futuristic, I hope they will join us in saying that we did one thing, and it became less and less controversial, that is to extend the underpinnings, in terms of liability coverage, the underpinnings of nuclear power for today and nuclear power for the future. I yield the floor and thank the Chair for recognition.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor an amendment to modernize our nation's pipeline safety programs. As you know, the Senate passed this legislation on February 8th of last year, by a vote of 98-0. Because it has not yet been acted on in the House, I am pleased to see that we are working to get this important legislation enacted in another way. As we all remember, the issue of our country's pipeline safety came to the forefront after tragic explosions in Bellingham, Washington, and later, in my own state of New Mexico. On August 19, 2000, twelve members of an extended family were on a camping and fishing trip along the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Just after midnight, a natural gas pipeline exploded, sending a 350 foot high ball of flame into the air. Six of the campers died instantly. The six remaining family members later died from their horrific injuries. We have to make sure that tragedies like this do not occur again. What I am here to do today, is to work so that we don't have to think twice before camping with our families and friends. Pipelines carry almost all of the natural gas and 65 percent of the crude oil and refined oil products. Three primary types of pipelines form a network of nearly 2.2 million miles, 7,000 of which lie in my own state of New Mexico. Pipelines stretch across our country. They allow us to obtain energy resources quickly and economically. In light of the energy crisis in California, and in the west in general, the value of our nation's pipeline system is obvious. We must have access to energy. Therefore, pipelines and the potential hazards they pose affect us all. It is time that we do something to ensure our safety while protecting our access to energy. This amendment: Significantly increases States' role in oversight, inspection, and investigation of pipelines. Improves and expands the public's right to know about pipeline hazards. Dramatically increases civil penalties for safety and reporting violations. Increases reporting requirements of releases of hazardous liquids from 50 barrels to five gallons. Provides important whistle blower protections prohibiting discrimination by pipeline operators, contractors or subcontractors. Furthermore, the legislation would provide much needed funding for research and development in pipeline safety technologies. In fact, technology currently exists that might have detected weaknesses in pipelines around Carlsbad. Unfortunately, due to insufficient funding those products have yet to reach the market. La Sen Corporation in my own state of New Mexico has developed technology that can detect faulty pipelines where current pipeline inspection technology is not usable. La Sen's Electronic Mapping System can be very effective even in pipelines where conventional pig devices cannot be used. Pipeline inspection is costly and slow. Innovative new technologies could allow us to inspect all 2.2 million miles of pipeline each year in a cost effective manner. Today, pipeline inspection technology only covers 5-10 miles per day at a cost of $50 per mile. Again, La Sen's technology can survey 500 miles per day at a cost of $32 per mile. The bottom line is that today, we can take action that will hopefully make pipelines safer. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the potential dangers that pipelines pose and to minimize those dangers by agreeing to this amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a fallen hero from my home State of New Mexico--I see Senator Bingaman so I think it is appropriate to say ``our home State''--Senior Airman Jason Cunningham. He lost his life this week while trying to save the life of another serviceman in eastern Afghanistan. I express my heartfelt condolences to Jason's wife Theresa; his daughters, 2-year-old Hannah and 4-year-old Kyla; as well as his parents Larry and Jackie. I know I speak for all New Mexicans when I say how proud we are of your husband, father, and son, and that our thoughts and prayers are with you. Jason was a member of the Air Force's elite pararescue team whose mission is to rescue downed pilots in hostile territory. He joined the 38th Rescue Squadron because it was his passion to save lives, and that is exactly what Jason and his comrades were doing this week when he came under heavy fire from the al-Qaida force. During an attempt by our forces to land a reconnaissance team in a mountainous region known to be inhabited by al-Qaida and Taliban, one troop fell from a helicopter when it was hit by enemy fire. Later, it was Jason and his rescue team who bravely went into the area where the trooper and helicopter were down in an attempt to extricate him. A heavy fire-fight ensued and Jason and five other Americans lost their lives. I know that words are of little consolation at such a difficult time for Jason's loved ones, but I want his family to know that all New Mexicans--this Senator, and I am certain my colleague, Senator Bingaman--mourn with them today. I am sure that for Jason's heroics his country will bestow upon him one of the most highly respected honors it can give, the Purple Heart. Such valor deserves no less. The loss of such fine Americans as Jason in the war on terrorism can be heartrending, but as a nation we must honor the sacrifices of men and women like Airman Cunningham and remain steadfast in our resolve to protect our freedoms and liberty from terrorism. President Bush has told us many times that this war would not be quick or easy, and it would be good to remember that while we mourn the loss of a good man like Jason Cunningham. I ask unanimous consent that a detailed statement surrounding the young man and his family headlined ``New Mexican Dies Trying to Save Others'' from the Albuquerque Journal, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. He will probably be here for 2 or 3 weeks managing this bill. I believe those who know what happened will understand the Senator did put in a lot of ideas and a lot of proposals that came from our side of the aisle. To mention one, there are a lot of proposals in this that are now reduced to statute form that have to do with nuclear energy for the future. They were in a bill that I introduced, along with the Senator from Louisiana who is sitting in the chair, and some of those were taken--in fact, most of them--and are in this bill that Senator Bingaman has brought. I hope we will take all of the difficult issues that confront us and not dillydally, but get them debated and voted on. ANWR is among those. So is the CAFE standard. Let us get on with it. Let us proceed. Then the entire provision on electricity--there is a very elaborate provision that was put in by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and we will have to decide whether that is what we want, but at least the issue will be joined on another very important part of this bill. So I hope we will proceed on some areas. It is pretty hard to make the Senate proceed with dispatch when Senators know they have an infinite amount of time on a bill. It will be hard to get them to bring amendments, but there will be plenty of them soon, and I look for myself to be participating, particularly on the nuclear part of this bill, during which time I will share a lot more with the Senate and those interested about why we should proceed with nuclear energy, at least its availability, as part of the mix in the United States for our future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. If that is the order we are in, I ask I be added to that consent in that manner.

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, are there other Senators waiting to be heard? I will not be long; maybe 7 to 10 minutes. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Madam President, I am pleased we are finally beginning to debate a very serious subject and that we have put together a bill that is before us that perhaps after a couple of weeks of work will be known as the Senate's comprehensive energy policy for our Nation. As President Bush has repeatedly said, this issue is a vital component of our homeland defense and our national security. Our economic and our environmental future is directly tied to our ability to produce ample supplies of clean, reliable energy. There can be no doubt that this great Nation, which has achieved the most significant heights in terms of material wealth and material well-being, has done that because we have been able, principally with our American private sector and competition, to supply the kinds of energy that are needed for this enormous growth that affects each and every family as they go about their daily lives, as they live in their homes which have heat, which have cool air in the summer, which have kitchens with all kinds of appliances to get done what they want for their families and enjoy life. In a very real sense, America's future is tied to whether or not we are smart enough to do the right things or, in some instances, to do nothing so that we can continue to have this supply of energy that we need for our future. Everyone knows that without an adequate supply of energy, our modern standard of living would plummet. Long-term recession and major job losses would be the norm. In fact, America would not be the America it is today in a decade or two if, for some reason, we did not have adequate energy supplies. We saw the impact sometime back from oil shocks and their devastation to our economy, but remember that the shock in the 1970s occurred when we were little more than one-third dependent upon foreign nations for our oil. Yet we had an enormous shock. Now we are nearly 60 percent dependent on oil. This underscores the importance, in this Senator's opinion, of moving forward with an energy plan that the President will be a partner in and that the President can sign, and with his intervention from time to time that we can altogether say we have produced an energy plan, bipartisan in nature, under the leadership of our President. The policy that we have must set forth the principles, should be the guideline, for our debate on a comprehensive energy policy. That is the policy the President put before us. Specifically, that policy noted that through conservation, more production, and renewed infrastructure for distribution, the country can overcome short-term energy shortages. In addition, we can build a new approach to energy that will continue to increase the quality of life in the United States and place us in the leadership role in improving the quality of life around the world. Conservation and efficiency clearly must be part of this comprehensive energy bill. I appreciate the emphasis the President has put in his policy proposals on these aspects of energy policy in the United States, and I compliment Senator Bingaman. While I do not agree with everything in the bill with reference to conservation, with reference to saving of energy, the bill has some very good ideas in it and I hope some of them will still be in the bill when we finish our 10 days to 2-week debate. Conservation has been absolutely vital to the United States over the past decades in controlling our thirst for energy. A lot of people do not know we have done some very significant things in the area of conservation--at least the numbers show that--so let me talk about those. Since 1973, our economy has expanded 126 percent while our energy increase has been only 30 percent. That shows, in my opinion, we have taken conservation seriously and we have already done something about it. That does not mean we have solved all the problems in conservation, that we have opened all the windows that can be opened to conservation, but clearly we know how to do it. I also appreciate the emphasis in the President's policy on environmental protection, and that obviously finds itself in this bill also. I think we should remind ourselves and fellow Americans that we have accomplished a lot. For example, again, since 1970 our emission of air pollutants has decreased by 31 percent while our gross domestic product grew by 147 percent and the amount of vehicle miles driven has increased by 140 percent. When one looks at those kinds of numbers, they know the United States has done a reasonably good job to date. Even though there are many who are critical, it is obvious to this Senator that if we can do again in the next decade or two what we have done in the past decade or two with reference to these two areas, we will indeed have a very good energy policy and a policy that will carry us through in good stead. Of course, there is more to environmental protections than just the quality of air, which I have mentioned in terms of where we were and what happened to our clean air. The policy the President proposes carefully notes that modern energy exploration and extraction technology can be done with minimal environmental impact. I hope those who will listen to the debate and ultimately participate by virtue of what they think their Senator should do and letting them know about it--I hope everybody knows that modern energy exploration and extraction technology can be done with minimal environmental impact. I am proud some of these advanced techniques have been pioneered in the State of New Mexico and are now ready to help in the exploration of ANWR, if that be the will of the Congress and of the President. Returning to our immediate task at hand, I am not at all pleased with the way this bill got to the Senate, but I will not repeat what has been repeatedly said by the Senator from Alaska. I think the issue that divides us, ANWR, should have been voted on in committee. I think the bill should have come with ANWR in or out, with the Senate having debated it in committee and having voted. I believe if that would have been the case, ANWR would be in the bill. Now, which ANWR? Not the ANWR we talked about a couple of years ago. The ANWR that is spoken of in the House bill, where a very small area, 2,000 acres, will be used to determine whether or not there is sufficient oil to proceed. With the new technologies from that small location, we will be able to determine tremendous information with reference to what surrounds it and where, and we can determine as a nation and as a people if we should proceed. I believe we should have produced a bill that had all of the major issues that are now in this bill discussed and debated in the committee. On the other hand, I believe Senator Bingaman, who comes with the first major bill I think he has managed--I would ask the Senator, is that correct?