Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001. This bill represents an important first step towards greatly increasing our understanding of our nation's infrastructures and the interdependencies among those infrastructures that underpin our daily lives. I would ask my colleagues to think about the scare surrounding the year 2000 potential computer glitch, the so-called Y2K problem. We invested billions of dollars to ensure that the transition to that date did not cause a cataclysmic failure in our weapons systems, medical devices, energy sources, financial systems and many other areas. But, the cyber component of our potential vulnerability did not disappear on January 2, 2000. The physical infrastructures that support our daily lives are vulnerable as well. The increasing complexity of transportation and energy infrastructures make them extremely vital to our economy and exceedingly vulnerable to minor disturbances or perturbations, intentional or not. In many instances, a cyber infrastructure underlies the normal, efficient functioning of the physical infrastructures. The smooth functioning of the Federal Government, whether it's a Defense Department mission or the handling of veteran's medical claims, relies heavily on cyber infrastructures. Further, many critical infrastructures are supported or owned by private sector entities. The task of adequate protection and mitigation risk must be a cooperative effort between Federal, State and local governments and private sector actors. Beyond having insufficient understanding of the complex systems and their interdependencies, we also have no means to pinpoint what vulnerabilities we face or create policies to address vulnerabilities or ensure stability. Technology has outpaced our understanding of the potential inherent weaknesses or ensuing vulnerabilities. We currently cannot assess either the problems or possible solutions. The administration is fully aware of this problem. We confront a fundamental national security concern, and we currently lack sufficient government coordination and scientific understanding to adequately address it. The President will sign an Executive order in the coming weeks to address the coordination needs of the federal agencies responsible for critical infrastructures. This Executive order establishes the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection and Continuity Board to address our federal government's policies, procedures and capacity to achieve specific policy objectives. This Board will require scientific modeling and simulation capacity to inform policy making and implementation of a framework to ensure adequate protection. The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) offers precisely that scientific capability. For almost a decade two of the Department of Energy National Laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, have been working to model our nations energy and transportation infrastructures. They have also modeled epidemics, simulated anthrax attacks and assisted private sector companies better understand the infrastructure necessarily for the next generation of cell phones. The computing capacity and expertise applied to modeling and simulating the physics of a nuclear explosion can be readily leveraged to address the design and protection of our nation's cyber and physical infrastructures. This bill is designed to support the President's forthcoming executive order by reiterating our key national policy objectives, including: that the physical or virtual disruption of any of these critical infrastructures should be rare, brief, limited geographically, manageable, and minimally detrimental to the economy, essential human and government services, and national security; a public-private partnership, involving corporation and non-governmental organizations, is necessary to facilitate adequate protection; the need for a comprehensive and effective program to ensure continuity of essential Federal functions under all circumstances. The bill also establishes NISAC as a core research and analytical tool to support the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection and Continuity Board, especially, but not limited to, the Infrastructure Interdependencies Committee established in the Executive order. Further, the bill authorizes $8 million for the first year in order to expedite the process of creating a structure for data acquisition, model development and enhanced understanding or our nation's infrastructures and their interdependencies. Our Nation cannot be secure without sufficient understanding of the infrastructures that undergrid our economy and facilitate modern life. The unintentional or overt disruption of any one of these infrastructures could have a cascading effect on other areas. In a worst case scenario, such mass disruption could have a severe economic or national security impact. I ask my colleagues for their support in ensuring we immediately apply the best available means to addressing these threats. NISAC can offer the appropriate analytical tools to support the President's Critical Infrastructure Board. This bill will position and fund NISAC in the forthcoming year to fulfill this mission. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001. This bill represents an important first step towards greatly increasing our understanding of our nation's infrastructures and the interdependencies among those infrastructures that underpin our daily lives. I would ask my colleagues to think about the scare surrounding the year 2000 potential computer glitch, the so-called Y2K problem. We invested billions of dollars to ensure that the transition to that date did not cause a cataclysmic failure in our weapons systems, medical devices, energy sources, financial systems and many other areas. But, the cyber component of our potential vulnerability did not disappear on January 2, 2000. The physical infrastructures that support our daily lives are vulnerable as well. The increasing complexity of transportation and energy infrastructures make them extremely vital to our economy and exceedingly vulnerable to minor disturbances or perturbations, intentional or not. In many instances, a cyber infrastructure underlies the normal, efficient functioning of the physical infrastructures. The smooth functioning of the Federal Government, whether it's a Defense Department mission or the handling of veteran's medical claims, relies heavily on cyber infrastructures. Further, many critical infrastructures are supported or owned by private sector entities. The task of adequate protection and mitigation risk must be a cooperative effort between Federal, State and local governments and private sector actors. Beyond having insufficient understanding of the complex systems and their interdependencies, we also have no means to pinpoint what vulnerabilities we face or create policies to address vulnerabilities or ensure stability. Technology has outpaced our understanding of the potential inherent weaknesses or ensuing vulnerabilities. We currently cannot assess either the problems or possible solutions. The administration is fully aware of this problem. We confront a fundamental national security concern, and we currently lack sufficient government coordination and scientific understanding to adequately address it. The President will sign an Executive order in the coming weeks to address the coordination needs of the federal agencies responsible for critical infrastructures. This Executive order establishes the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection and Continuity Board to address our federal government's policies, procedures and capacity to achieve specific policy objectives. This Board will require scientific modeling and simulation capacity to inform policy making and implementation of a framework to ensure adequate protection. The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) offers precisely that scientific capability. For almost a decade two of the Department of Energy National Laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs, have been working to model our nations energy and transportation infrastructures. They have also modeled epidemics, simulated anthrax attacks and assisted private sector companies better understand the infrastructure necessarily for the next generation of cell phones. The computing capacity and expertise applied to modeling and simulating the physics of a nuclear explosion can be readily leveraged to address the design and protection of our nation's cyber and physical infrastructures. This bill is designed to support the President's forthcoming executive order by reiterating our key national policy objectives, including: that the physical or virtual disruption of any of these critical infrastructures should be rare, brief, limited geographically, manageable, and minimally detrimental to the economy, essential human and government services, and national security; a public-private partnership, involving corporation and non-governmental organizations, is necessary to facilitate adequate protection; the need for a comprehensive and effective program to ensure continuity of essential Federal functions under all circumstances. The bill also establishes NISAC as a core research and analytical tool to support the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection and Continuity Board, especially, but not limited to, the Infrastructure Interdependencies Committee established in the Executive order. Further, the bill authorizes $8 million for the first year in order to expedite the process of creating a structure for data acquisition, model development and enhanced understanding or our nation's infrastructures and their interdependencies. Our Nation cannot be secure without sufficient understanding of the infrastructures that undergrid our economy and facilitate modern life. The unintentional or overt disruption of any one of these infrastructures could have a cascading effect on other areas. In a worst case scenario, such mass disruption could have a severe economic or national security impact. I ask my colleagues for their support in ensuring we immediately apply the best available means to addressing these threats. NISAC can offer the appropriate analytical tools to support the President's Critical Infrastructure Board. This bill will position and fund NISAC in the forthcoming year to fulfill this mission. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce ``The Water Supply Security Act of 2001.'' Access to fresh water is an increasingly critical national and international issue. As the world's population grows and stores of fresh water are depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water is key to ensuring world peace and security. In the Middle East, a major component of almost every peace agreement is water. President Khatami of Iran said last month that peace in the region will be largely determined by mechanisms to solve the problem of water. Shortly after being elected, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon stated that one of the first things he was going to do was to build two water desalting plants in Israel to meet that country's water needs. Providing fresh water to the people of Africa is a key component in fighting the AIDS epidemic plaguing that continent. AIDS researchers have determined that a principal reason that mothers with AIDS and HIV are spreading the virus to their children is because there is not enough clean water to mix infant formula. Here in the United States, arid states such as New Mexico are facing serious water shortages. City planners in my home town of Albuquerque have speculated that the city will not be able to grow much more because the aquifer located beneath the city is quickly drying up. Nevada, Arizona, Texas, California and Florida are facing similar problems. A study by the Hudson Institute found that by the year 2025, 45 percent of the U.S. population growth will occur in California, Texas, and Florida, States already facing severe water shortages. This population explosion will undoubtedly result in a scarcity of fresh water. Although all these States have diminishing stores of fresh water, they all have large deposits of brackish and sea water. Because brackish and sea water account for over 97 percent of the water on earth, being able to cheaply convert this water into fresh water is important to ensuring an adequate supply of fresh water. President Kennedy, a strong proponent of the government funding for desalting technology, stated ``if we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water . . . (this) would be in the long-range interests of humanity which would really dwarf any other scientific accomplishments.'' The R&D funded by the federal government between 1952 and the early 1980s resulted in the two desalting technologies that are most widely used today. The development of these widely used technologies would not have been possible had it not been for federally sponsored research and development. Just as these endeavors resulted in significant technological breakthroughs, I believe that a renewed investment by the federal government would lead to further advancements in the technology. Although desalting technology has become significantly cheaper in recent years, the cost of desalting brackish and seawater is still substantially more expensive than treatment and delivery of other municipal water supplies. In 1996, Congress passed the Water Desalination Act of 1996. This created a small desalting R & D and demonstration program within the Bureau of Reclamation that was tasked with determining the most technologically efficient and cost-effective means by which useable water can be produced from saline water. This program has been very successful despite receiving limited funding. However, their authorization is set to expire in 2002. The legislation I introduce today would re-authorize the desalting R & D and demonstration program run by the Bureau of Reclamation for an additional six years so that they can continue their work on ensuring that we are able to produce fresh water at a reduced cost. In addition to renewing this program, the federal government needs to pursue next-generation technologies that would significantly drive down the cost of converting large volumes of readily available saline and brackish waters. Although desalting technology cost and performance have been significantly improved over the past thirty years, overall cost needs to be reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 to make desalted water affordable. While the currently available technologies may be meeting the needs of certain coastal communities with adequate resources to finance such technology, there is a real need for technologies that can tackle a broader range of applications and reduce costs significantly. Such revolutionary desalting technologies would provide significant relief to communities throughout the world, be they rich or poor, coastal or inland. Our national laboratories have long been known for being at the forefront of science. The laboratories have extensive expertise in virtually all of the key science and technology areas necessary for developing next-generation desalting technology. Furthermore, the labs are already engaged in research and development in several non- traditional desalination technologies. As such, I believe our national laboratories should play a significant role in the development of this vital technology. Drawing from the technological expertise that the labs can provide should ensure that this endeavor will be a successful one. The bill that I introduce today would direct a collaboration between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Energy in evaluating current technology, advising on how to proceed with additional research, authorizing the building of a facility where these advances in technology could be tested, and confirming project and operation costs in a real-world application. This bill would also employ the extensive knowledge in desalination technology that the Bureau of Reclamation has accumulated over the past 30 years by allowing that agency to conduct internal research. I have no doubt that this legislation would help to push the state of the art forward to ensure that the world has access to this life sustaining resource for years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is fine. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to take the time of the Senate to explain the situation. Arsenic is a poison, but arsenic appears in the western part of the United States in abundance in the geological structure of the rocks and stones in New Mexico. When the Spaniards came to that part of America 400 years ago, they obviously started drinking water. They dug holes, drilled wells, they used the river water, and guess what? They were drinking water that was not polluted, as some of the advertisements running today suggest. If one goes out there now and checks the water, one will find there is arsenic in the water because there is arsenic in the rocks and the geological formations. Interestingly enough, and I do not want to argue about the proposition that arsenic is serious and arsenic can hurt you, but there is no evidence from those early Spanish days--absolutely no evidence that any of the diseases we are talking about existed in that population. There is no evidence there was an increase in the ailments about which we are now talking. I would have liked to argue today or sometime that Southwestern America deserves an opportunity to prove the people there are not harmed by the naturally occurring arsenic in the water. Tonight I choose to say thank you to the Senator from California for the amendment she offered. I will ask those Senators from the West on our side to vote for it because essentially it will give the Environmental Protection Agency an opportunity to take into consideration, as I read the amendment, what I am talking about tonight. They will set a standard, yes. It does not say precisely what, and clearly they are going to take some facts into consideration that are real and that should be taken into consideration by a National Government imposing a standard on a western part of America, be it Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Alaska, New Mexico, or Colorado. Nobody is putting the arsenic in their water, as some of the environmental ads talk about. The arsenic is there because arsenic is in the ground, in the rocks, in the mountains, and therefore comes into our streams. When we drill wells, we get it, and in Albuquerque, they pump hundreds of millions of gallons of water a day from the water under the Rio Grande, and there is more arsenic than some think we ought to have. The bill I just introduced and the one Senator Reid introduced recognizes that in some parts of America--I am sure it will be my State, Idaho, and some others, that if we have to fix up our water plants, some in villages of 100 people where they have a small water system and no other water, it will create a significant financial burden. Their water is going to cost, in one case, $91 a month for everybody on that system. Obviously, we have to move in the direction of correcting the problem. The Government should help us correct it. The VA-HUD appropriations bill is, in many respects, as far as this Senator is concerned, a wonderful bill. EPA is treated in great fashion. There are a number of things in New Mexico we have asked for that have been treated wonderfully. When it comes to whether we should force a lower standard on our cities and villages in the West, and if we do, when, and what should the standard really be, there is plenty of room for serious discussion among fairminded people who are not bent on politics. If one wants to make a big political issue out of the fact that perhaps somebody in the White House could have handled this a little differently--frankly, I wish they would have talked to me before they handled it because they would not have had anybody mad at them and they would have fixed it. Essentially, the Clinton regulation did not come into effect until 2006. Does that surprise people? That is when it would have been effective if we had not had all this commotion. It is serious. We cannot put this into effect quickly in our part of the country. Originally, the implementation was to occur in the year 2006. Tonight I urge everyone to vote for the amendment because it is a clear indication that something ought to be done. I do believe it is different than the amendment the House passed. I thank the Senator from California because her amendment is different. It gives us an opportunity to go to conference, work with the Environmental Protection Agency and others, and do precisely what the Senator from California wants. She wants the United States to move in harmony to get safe drinking water with the lowest amount of arsenic possible and still have affordable drinking water. After all, we need drinking water. We cannot pay $200 or $300 a month for it in New Mexico. One city is going to spend over $250 million to improve its water system because it has this naturally occurring arsenic and yet, nobody has proven this arsenic is harmful to anybody. That part of New Mexico and the areas around it have been inhabited by indigenous Indians longer than any of us know. The Spanish inhabited the area for 450 years, and Albuquerqueans--made up from all kinds of Americans--have been there for over 150 years. We want to give them a chance. We do not want the people to spend more than is necessary on this problem. Certainly, nobody is putting poison in the water. We are trying to purify natural water. The streams of New Mexico contain arsenic. No fish are dying that I have heard of and yet, there is arsenic in those rivers. In terms of its chemical makeup, it is the same arsenic as the poison and the arsenic used in mining activities. For those who are interested in history, it is the same arsenic that somebody gave to Napoleon. Those who dug up Napoleon's corpse found that perhaps somebody gave him regular doses of arsenic. They believe that is what happened to him. They think one of his best friends put arsenic into his system slowly over a period of about 20 years. I thank the Senator from California for the way we accomplished things tonight. I am sure she is going to get a unanimous vote from the Senate saying: Let's move ahead and resolve this issue. If there is no other Senator on our side who desires to speak----

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I do not believe I will use the 30 minutes I have. I thank Senator Clinton for the kind remarks with reference to this Senator. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 1299 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want of my 30 minutes? Five minutes of my time? I only have 30 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, we have 30 minutes. The way I look at it, we don't need the entire 30 minutes. If you can do with less, we can vote sooner.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield that time to Senator Bond.

Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pleasure of the Senator?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Montana?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that be the order of my remaining time, and if any time remains beyond that, I reserve the remainder.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes of my time to Senator Bingaman.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman be added as an original cosponsor of S. 1299, and I thank the Senator for his kind comments with reference to me.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I stand before you today to introduce a piece of legislation that will help move many States forward toward compliance with the arsenic drinking water standards the EPA Administrator intends to finalize in February. It has been said that ``a government must not waiver once it has chosen its course. It must not look to the left or to the right, but instead must go forward.'' This is the situation we find ourselves in today, our government has chosen a course and now we have no choice but to move forward. My bill, the Community Drinking Water Assistance Act, authorizes $1.9 billion dollars to be made directly available to local communities and Tribes through the EPA. EPA would award grants to communities and Tribes needing assistance for projects, activities, technical assistance, or for training and certifying system operators. The criteria for awarding grants would be directly based on financial need and per capita costs of complying with the drinking water standards. A new arsenic standard was promulgated in the waning hours of the Clinton Administration. While I do not fault the Bush administration for what they inherited, I must admit that I was disappointed when Administrator Whitman set a maximum standard without further scientific basis. It seemed illogical for Ms. Whitman to announce that the National Academy of Sciences would further review the health effects associated with arsenic, while simultaneously placing herself in a box that would set the maximum standard at 20 parts per billion. It would have been more logical to have waited for the studies to be completed before announcing what the standard would or would not be. The course has been set and I would just like to take a moment to highlight what this course will mean for New Mexicans. First and foremost, Arsenic is naturally occurring in New Mexico. In fact, New Mexico has some of the highest levels of arsenic in the Nation, yet has a lower than average incidence of the diseases associated with arsenic. Nonetheless, for all systems in New Mexico to be in compliance with a standard of 20 parts per billion, we are looking at a minimum price tag of $127 million. What this means to small community water users is more staggering. The average cost to water users, in small systems serving less than 1,000 people, is $57.46, and this is for a standard of 20 parts per billion! The numbers are even more staggering for a 10 part per billion standard. The New Mexico Environment Department estimates that if the standard is set at 10 parts per billion, approximately 25 percent of New Mexico's water systems will be affected. The price tag for compliance could fall between $400 million and $500 million in initial capital expenditures. Annual operating costs will easily fall anywhere between $16 and $21 million. Additionally, large water system users will see an average monthly water bill increase between $38 and $42 and small system users will see an average water bill increase of $91. The costs of complying with either of these standards could well put small rural systems out of business, which is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to accomplish, providing a safe and reliable supply of drinking water to rural America. Many New Mexicans cannot afford a minimum $57.46 rate increase in their monthly water bill. We live in a society that is dedicated to the removal of risk. Generally, when we get unintended consequences associated with risk averse decisions, the government stands ready with band-aids in every size. We still do not have a sound scientific basis suggesting what the actual arsenic standard should be. Therefore, to be ``on the safe side'' and remove risk, the government has chosen to set an arbitrary standard that will increase costs to water users, particularly in the West, by extreme proportions. Therefore, I do not assume that it is unfair to also ask that the government put itself in a position to offer financial assistance to these communities so that they can make the necessary repairs in their water systems to comply with this law. This is the only way to move forward on the course that has been set.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton and Senator Reid be added as cosponsors.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fissile Material Loan Guarantee Act of 2001. This Act is intended to increase the suite of programs that reduce proliferation threats from the Russian nuclear weapons complex. I'm pleased that Senator Lugar joins me as a co- sponsor of this Act. This Act presents an unusual option, which I've discussed with the leadership of some of the world's largest private banks and lending institutions. I also am aware that discussions between Western lending institutions and the Russian Federation are in progress and that discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA have helped to clarify their responsibilities. This Act would enable the imposition of international protective safeguards on new, large stocks of Russian weapons-ready materials in a way that enables the Russian Federation to gain near-term financial resources from the materials. These materials would be used as collateral to secure a loan, for which the U.S. Government would provide a loan guarantee. The Act requires that loan proceeds be used in either debt retirement for the Russian Federation or in support of Russian non-proliferation or energy programs. It also requires that the weapons-grade materials used to collateralize these loans must remain under international IAEA safeguards forevermore and thus should serve to remove them from concern as future weapons materials. This Act does not replace programs that currently are in place to ensure that weapons-grade materials can never be used in weapons in the future. Specifically, it does not displace materials already committed under earlier agreements. The Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU Agreement is moving toward elimination of 500 tons of Russian weapons-grade uranium. The Plutonium Disposition Agreement is similarly working on elimination of 34 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium, primarily by its use in MOX fuel. The HEU agreement removes material usable in 20,000 nuclear weapons, while the plutonium disposition agreement similarly removes material for more than 4,000 nuclear weapons. Both of these agreements enable the transition of Russian materials into commercial reactor fuel, which, after use in a reactor, destroys its ``weapons-grade'' attributes. There should be no question that both these agreements remain of vital importance to both nations. But estimates are that the Russian Federation has vast stocks of weapons-grade materials in addition to the amounts they've already declared as surplus to their weapons needs in these earlier agreements. If we can provide additional incentives to Russia to encourage transition of more of these materials into configurations where it is not available for diversion or re-use in weapons, we've made another significant step toward global stability. And furthermore, this proposed mechanism provides a relatively low cost approach to reduction of threats from these materials. Senator Lugar and I introduced a similar bill near the end of the 106th Congress, to provide time for discussion of its features. Those discussions have progressed, and this bill has some slight refinements that grew out of those discussions. Since then, we have received additional assurances that this bill provides a useful route to reduce proliferation threats, and thus we are reintroducing this bill in the 107th Congress. Within the last few months, former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler completed an important report outlining the importance of the non-proliferation programs accomplished jointly with Russia. They noted, as their top recommendation, that: The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops or citizens at home. This threat is a clear and present danger to the international community as well as to American lives and liberties. This new Act provides another tool toward reducing these threats to national, as well as global, security.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly great American, Brigadier General Thomas F. Gioconda, USAF. General Gioconda has served this Nation with distinction for 31 years. A native of Philadelphia, PA, General Gioconda is a graduate of St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, class of 1970. He has earned two masters degrees, one in School Administration from Seton Hall University, and another in Business Administration from the University of Montana. His military career began in 1970 with an assignment to Malstrom AFB, MT, where he served as a missile launch officer. After 4 years as a wing missile operations crew instructor, he served as an AFROTC instructor at his alma mater for two years, followed by another two years at New Jersey Institute of Technology. He then served as a missile operations instructor and section chief at the 4315th Combat Crew Training Squadron, Vandenberg AFB, CA. General Gioconda has also served as the principal liaison officer to Congress for both General Colin Powell (Ret) and General John Shalikashvili (Ret) during momentous times in our Nation's history--the end of the Cold War, Operations Desert Storm, Provide Promise, Provide Hope, Provide Comfort, Southern Watch, Deny Flight, and Restore Democracy, and Joint Endeavor, as well as countless other military operations and deployments. General Gioconda came to Department of Energy Defense Programs in August 1997 to serve as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Application (DP-2). During his 4-year tenure, General Gioconda served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs and later as the Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, for almost as long as he has served in the DP-2 position. Under this leadership, the Stockpile Stewardship Program, one of the country's most challenging scientific and engineering programs is delivering results of the American people, results that make this a safer country for us all. His steady hand, clear vision, decency, candor, and sense of humor has also helped the program overcome profound challenges over the last several years. At the conclusion of his first tour as Acting Deputy Administrator, his accomplishments were justly rewarded with the presentation of the Department of Energy's highest honor, the Secretary's Gold Medal. General Gioconda has made great personal professional sacrifices to ensure the success of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Nation owes him a depth of gratitude for this service. I know that the men and women of the National Nuclear Security Administration will sorely miss his leadership, commitment to excellence, and untiring efforts to look out for their welfare. In addition to his Department of Energy award, General Gioconda has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (four Oak Leaf Clusters), three Air Force Commendation Medals, the Air Force Achievement Medal, the Combat Readiness Medal, the Outstanding Voluntary Service Medal, and the Command Missile Badge. We wish Tom, his wife Anita, and their three sons, Tom, Jr., Anthony, and Timothy, the very best. It is a great honor and personal privilege for me to present his credentials and this tribute to General Thomas F. Gioconda before the Congress today. I have enjoyed working with the General over the years and I will miss his wise counsel. General Gioconda's extraordinary commitment has helped sustain our Nation's security during his tenure and beyond and reflects great credit upon himself, the Departments of the Air Force and Energy, and the United States of America. His actions reflect the highest professional standards of the Air Force. He is an officer of the highest honor, integrity, and purpose. Please join me in wishing this patriotic American every success in the years ahead.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished majority whip for yielding, and Senator Harkin. I will take only a few minutes. My friend from Ohio has been waiting for a long time. I am listening tonight about how urgent matters are and how urgent it is we pass this measure tonight. I just want to make sure everybody understands that our farmers are in need of emergency relief provided in this bill. I hope my friend from Iowa is listening. This Harkin measure was voted out of committee on July 25. The House bill came to the Senate on June 26--1 month before it was voted out by the Ag Committee, which you chair, I say to my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. So if there is 1 day's delay on the floor because somebody really thinks that dairy compacts are important to their State, should it actually, in reality, even be insinuated they are the cause for delay when, as a matter of fact, the House bill has been here for 1 month? The House bill is still something that is possible. If we pass the House bill, everything our farmers need is completed. This bill that is before us in the Senate, has the House relief and then it adds additional spending into the next year--I am not arguing that the next year is against the budget resolution, but why do we have to, in an emergency, do next year's spending when the emergency we are worried about is this year? I do not intend to stay here very long and debate the issue. I just thought it might be of interest to some, what the real facts are with reference to delay. Having said that, I understand the great concern of the Senator from Iowa about agriculture. I understand the Senators on the other side who have gotten up and spoken today about agriculture. I do not want anyone to think that in the past 6 years while we were in control of the Senate we did not put very many billions--billions of dollars into emergency relief for the farmers. We did. When I was chairman of the Budget Committee, on which I am now ranking member--obviously, you can just go back and add it up--some years it was $8 billion in emergency money, other years we voted for $6 billion and $8 billion and $12 billion. So it is not anything new to have to vote or to be in favor of emergency relief for our farmers. One of these days we need a better system, but for now the world economy and a lot of other things are imposing on our farmers in such a way that they do need help. I am sure if the House bill were before us, with all of the emergency relief that is needed for this year, without which many farmers will not get what they are entitled to--if that were before us, it would probably get no negative votes. We could pass it and be done with it. Having said that, why did the Senator from New Mexico today object to proceeding with the amendment, with reference to dairies? I am pleased to note that even though I objected to a time limit, it was not the Senator from New Mexico who caused the delay. For some reason, the other side decided to pull the amendment. That is their own strategy. I didn't have anything to do with that. I compliment them for their arguments in favor of the compact that was before the Senate as offered by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I would just like to say, all of us come here because from time to time we are worried about legislation and its impact on our States. I came to the floor earlier because I have been very busy and I was not totally familiar with the compact amendments that were on the floor. I did know, when I came to the floor, that they might impact my State. I have now found they would impact my State in a dramatic way. All I want to do is tell the Senate what is happening to dairy in the United States. We are here talking about compacts protecting States as if that is the only way to get milk products for American consumers. The truth of the matter is, New Mexico and one other State are shining examples of a total departure from the idea of compacts, and a departure that says: Innovation. Let's do new things. Let's save real dollars for those who are consuming. We want to save on transportation, and under the compact approach you do not save on transportation. New Mexico's dairymen are competing in their part of the country with new technologies. They have new ways of treating milk before it is transported. They make it lighter. When it gets to where it has to go, it is returned to its original form, and who benefits? There is no change in the milk, and the beneficiaries are those who buy cheaper milk and those who producer more and more milk in the herds that are now grazing the landscapes of New Mexico and Idaho. I want to say how important it is we let that happen, that we let this innovation and competition happen. I am quite sure those who have compacts feel just as strongly about their States and about what they are doing with small herds and the like, as I do about what is happening in my State. I believe what is happening in my State and a few others like it is the wave of the future. Innovation and competition are changing the face of business in all our States and it is going to change the production of milk and milk-related products, just as sure as we are standing here tonight. In the year 2000, the dairy industry contributed over $1.8 billion to New Mexico's economy. The producers had about 150 individual dairy farmers, over 250,000 cows. That has grown since the early 80's and 90's. These are just the numbers we have are for the year 2000. New Mexico ranked 9th, believe it or not, in the total number of dairy cows; 10th in the total production of milk--5.23 billion pounds; 5th in the production per cow, 20,944 pounds. Some listening from other States probably cannot believe that is really happening, but it is. Yes, it is. We continue to be the first in the United States in the number of cows per herd, with New Mexico dairies averaging 1,582 cows per operation. I am very sorry if in some States they have small operations. But I think in the custom and tradition of the Senate that a Senator from New Mexico who has this happening in his State, which is otherwise a rather poor State, should have enough time to come to the floor and discuss something as complicated and detrimental to our State--probably as detrimental as any other legislation directly affecting New Mexico this whole year. New Mexico dairymen have a dramatic impact on local and regional economies, from the hiring of labor to feed purchases. According to the New Mexico Department of Labor, New Mexico dairies currently employ up to 3,183 people with an estimated payroll of $64.8 million. Additionally, NM processors currently employ up to 750 people with an estimated payroll of $25.5 million. This is an industry that I am committed to fighting for. Regional compacts could threaten this vital New Mexico industry. New Mexico has a small population and with the numbers I just mentioned, it produces a vast amount of milk. The future of the New Mexico dairy industry depends on mechanisms that are conducive to allowing NM milk to be transported to other areas. Compacts prohibit this type of activity. The Northeast Dairy Compact was established in mid-1997 as a short term measure to help New England dairy farmers adjust to a reformed Federal milk marketing order system. Even though market order reform was completed in late 1999, the Northeast compact was extended 2 additional years. It does not need to continue. The ``experiment'' with a Northeast Dairy Compact in the New England states has provided evidence against existing dairy compacts and potential expansion of compacts into other regions. I would like to take a moment and discuss why the Northeast dairy compact has been a failure. The stated goal of the Northeast compact was to reverse the steady decline in the number of dairy farms in this country. The numbers simply state the opposite has proved true. American Farm Bureau data indicates that New England lost more farms in the three years under the compact 465 than in the 3 years just prior to the compact 444. Most importantly, compacts are unconstitutional. Compacts blatantly undermine the commerce clause. One of the central tenets of the U.S. Constitution and a basic foundation of our nation is a unified economic market. We have never advocated for the right of States to unravel this central tenet of the U.S. Constitution, by allowing States to erect economic walls against one another. The higher prices paid by processors are passed on to consumers at the retail level. Economic studies, including one ordered by the Northeast Compact Commission itself, have confirmed the pass-through costs to consumers. These studies put the retail impact of the Northeast compact anywhere from 4\1/2\ to 14 cents per gallon of milk. Additionally, compacts discourage farmers and cooperatives from finding efficiencies in marketing, transportation and processing such as ultra-filtration and reverse osmosis technologies currently being used and improved upon by New Mexico dairymen. This is definitely a commodity and an industry worth protecting. If compacts are designed to protect dairy farmers and dairy farmers need protection, then do it with a national, not a regional program. If there are problems with the program, lets consider a national solution rather than expanding and extending divisive regional policies. A national alternative will address the concerns of all dairy farmers, not just those in compact States. Compacts establish restrictions and economic barriers against the sale of milk from other regions, increase milk prices to consumers in the compact region, and lead to a reduction in the price of milk paid to farmers outside the compact area. This is a quick fix not a national solution. We need a policy that addresses the concerns of producers in all regions, without pitting farmers in one region against those in other regions, or interfering in the marketplace through artificial price fixing mechanisms. I fear the Northeast dairy compact has set some kind of precedent for regional price fixing for an agricultural commodity. This cannot continue. If we do not stop this right now, where will it stop? Will we soon see a regionally fixed price for wheat to make bread? Or how about fruits and vegetables? Or will we soon see unelected regional commissions fix prices for gasoline? Or coal? Or even lumber? These are all commodities that have a regional imbalance of production and consumption, somewhat similar to milk, and the producers of these commodities have seen hard times in recent history. I suggest regional price fixing should end immediately. To reiterate, I challenge the constitutionality of the compacts. I believe they will be challenged sooner or later. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is moving in a direction where they will be declared to be monopolistic. I think that is what is going to happen. But I do not want to debate that as a lawyer or constitutional expert here on the floor. I just want to say clearly I must, in all good conscience, defend my State against what is going to happen if we proceed too quickly and we do not have a chance to thoroughly understand this matter. As I said, I have even studied the history of how we first got involved in these compacts. Actually, it was accidental. It was an emergency situation, and it was supposed to last for only 2 years. Two years has led into many years beyond, and instead of just the Northeast, it is spreading throughout. So what we have are these kinds of compacts among States all over America except for States such as New Mexico and perhaps Idaho. We want to be competitive. We want to provide the very best products to as many American people as we can. It is very important that we had this discussion today. I do not believe it is fair to characterize what has gone on here on this bill as any kind of excessive delay. You have a bill that exceeds what the President asked for and what the House passed by almost $2 billion. Use of that $2 billion will not occur until a year from now. It is not an emergency. Yet we have those saying if you do not let it pass, and let it pass quickly, you are unduly delaying what our farmers need. It is very easy to decide how to fix this. Just take the 2002 money out of this bill and have it address a real emergency and let's vote up or down on it. That means we would not even have to go to conference. All the farmers in our country who need their checks this year will get them, and they will get them on time. Otherwise, it is very doubtful whether they will. Pass this bill with the 2002 money. That is not an emergency. Try to pass it with anything like the compact and who knows where it will end up. The President isn't telling this Senator what to do. But I understand he will veto the bill. I understood where I was before I knew where he was, if anybody is interested on that side. Clearly, it did not come from the President. My concern is as it affects New Mexico. I close by discussing what has happened in the last 10 years in the United States of America. It is a new economy. The United States has basically changed the underpinnings of its economy. President Clinton said it. Our new President says it. Alan Greenspan says it. It is a new economy in capital letters. It means we are changing. We are being innovative. We are becoming more competitive. We are inventing and putting more things on the market. What does that increase? It increases our productivity. Productivity is the key to the Social Security trust fund and to paying our seniors in the future. It is the key to having surpluses in the future. Productivity can apply to every industry, including dairy cows and milk production. That is what we think ought to happen in America. We would like to continue to do it in our States. We would like for the Senate not to impose upon them a cartel. States can in a sense in their own circuitous way fix the product. Maybe you should strike ``fix the price'' and make arrangements for what it will cost so we will not be losing any pejorative words. I am ready to discuss this tomorrow. I have been thoroughly apprised of the compact issue. I understand it, and I am willing to use a reasonable amount of time to discuss this tomorrow, and then proceed. But what we think on this is not going to get this bill cleared and say it will pass and it will go to the President. It has a lot of hurdles. The farmers need their money very quickly. We have already had a month when we could have produced a bill--at least 3\1/2\ weeks--for reasons which might be good. We didn't do that. But to complain right now that this 1 day on the Senate floor is what is hurting our farmers is just not true. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have been waiting to be heard for 6 or 7 minutes. How much longer before the Senator might be able to speak? The Senator has the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator, the Senator from New Mexico objects to a time limit. I will be in the Chamber to object to a time limit an hour from now, 2 hours from now. I want the ag bill to pass, but I am not at all sure it is the right thing to put a dairy compact on at this late hour. This Senator needs to know a lot more about it. So my colleagues know, I do not agree with the one being discussed, and I will not agree to one when it is proposed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fissile Material Loan Guarantee Act of 2001. This Act is intended to increase the suite of programs that reduce proliferation threats from the Russian nuclear weapons complex. I'm pleased that Senator Lugar joins me as a co- sponsor of this Act. This Act presents an unusual option, which I've discussed with the leadership of some of the world's largest private banks and lending institutions. I also am aware that discussions between Western lending institutions and the Russian Federation are in progress and that discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA have helped to clarify their responsibilities. This Act would enable the imposition of international protective safeguards on new, large stocks of Russian weapons-ready materials in a way that enables the Russian Federation to gain near-term financial resources from the materials. These materials would be used as collateral to secure a loan, for which the U.S. Government would provide a loan guarantee. The Act requires that loan proceeds be used in either debt retirement for the Russian Federation or in support of Russian non-proliferation or energy programs. It also requires that the weapons-grade materials used to collateralize these loans must remain under international IAEA safeguards forevermore and thus should serve to remove them from concern as future weapons materials. This Act does not replace programs that currently are in place to ensure that weapons-grade materials can never be used in weapons in the future. Specifically, it does not displace materials already committed under earlier agreements. The Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU Agreement is moving toward elimination of 500 tons of Russian weapons-grade uranium. The Plutonium Disposition Agreement is similarly working on elimination of 34 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium, primarily by its use in MOX fuel. The HEU agreement removes material usable in 20,000 nuclear weapons, while the plutonium disposition agreement similarly removes material for more than 4,000 nuclear weapons. Both of these agreements enable the transition of Russian materials into commercial reactor fuel, which, after use in a reactor, destroys its ``weapons-grade'' attributes. There should be no question that both these agreements remain of vital importance to both nations. But estimates are that the Russian Federation has vast stocks of weapons-grade materials in addition to the amounts they've already declared as surplus to their weapons needs in these earlier agreements. If we can provide additional incentives to Russia to encourage transition of more of these materials into configurations where it is not available for diversion or re-use in weapons, we've made another significant step toward global stability. And furthermore, this proposed mechanism provides a relatively low cost approach to reduction of threats from these materials. Senator Lugar and I introduced a similar bill near the end of the 106th Congress, to provide time for discussion of its features. Those discussions have progressed, and this bill has some slight refinements that grew out of those discussions. Since then, we have received additional assurances that this bill provides a useful route to reduce proliferation threats, and thus we are reintroducing this bill in the 107th Congress. Within the last few months, former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler completed an important report outlining the importance of the non-proliferation programs accomplished jointly with Russia. They noted, as their top recommendation, that: The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops or citizens at home. This threat is a clear and present danger to the international community as well as to American lives and liberties. This new Act provides another tool toward reducing these threats to national, as well as global, security.