Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that modifies the requirements for polygraphs at facilities operated by the Department of Energy. I appreciate that Senator Bingaman joins me as a co-sponsor. Polygraph requirements were added by Congress in response to concerns about security at the national laboratories. A set of mandates was first created in the Senate Armed Services Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, and they were expanded with broader mandates in Fiscal Year 2001. Security at the our national security facilities is critically important, and General Gordon is working diligently as Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to improve security through many initiatives. But frankly, I fear that Congress has given the General a little too much help in this particular area. The effect of our past legislation was to require polygraphs for very broad categories of workers in DOE and in our DOE weapons labs and plants. But the categories specified are really much too broad, some don't even refer to security-related issues. They include many workers who have no relevant knowledge or others who may be authorized to enter nuclear facilities but have no unsupervised access to actual material. Many of the positions within these categories already require a two- person rule, precluding actions by any one person to compromise protected items. This bill provides flexibility to allow the Secretary of Energy and General Gordon to set up a new polygraph program. Through careful examination of the positions with enough sensitivity to warrant polygraphs, I fully anticipate that the number of employees subject to polygraphs will be dramatically reduced while actually improving overall security. My bill seeks to address other concerns. Polygraphs are simply not viewed as scientifically credible by Laboratory staff. Those tests have been the major contributor to substantial degradation in worker morale at the labs. This is especially serious when the labs and plants are struggling to cope with the new challenges imposed by the absence of nuclear testing and with the need to recruit new scientific experts to replace an aging workforce. I should note that these staff concerns are not expressed about drug testing, which many already must take. They simply are concerned with entrusting their career to a procedure with questionable, in their minds, scientific validity. A study is in progress by the National Academy of Sciences that will go a long ways toward addressing this question about scientific credibility of polygraphs when they are used as a tool for screening large populations. By way of contrast, this use of polygraphs is in sharp contrast to their use in a targeted criminal investigation. That Academy's study will be completed in June 2002. Therefore, this bill sets up an interim program before the Academy's study is done and requires that a final program be established within 6 months after the study's completion. This bill addresses several concerns with the way in which polygraphs may be administered by the Department. For example, some employees are concerned that individual privacies, like medical conditions, are not being protected using the careful procedures developed for drug testing. And facility managers are concerned that polygraphs are sometimes administered without enough warning to ensure that work can continue in a safe manner in the sudden absence of an employee. And of greatest importance, the bill ensures that the results of a polygraph will not be the sole factor determining an employee's fitness for duty. With this bill, we can improve worker morale at our national security facilities by stopping unnecessarily broad application of polygraphs, while still providing the Secretary and General Gordon with enough flexibility to utilize polygraphs where reasonable. In addition, we set in motion a process, which will be based on the scientific evaluation of the National Academy, to implement an optimized plan to protect our national security.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that modifies the requirements for polygraphs at facilities operated by the Department of Energy. I appreciate that Senator Bingaman joins me as a co-sponsor. Polygraph requirements were added by Congress in response to concerns about security at the national laboratories. A set of mandates was first created in the Senate Armed Services Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, and they were expanded with broader mandates in Fiscal Year 2001. Security at the our national security facilities is critically important, and General Gordon is working diligently as Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to improve security through many initiatives. But frankly, I fear that Congress has given the General a little too much help in this particular area. The effect of our past legislation was to require polygraphs for very broad categories of workers in DOE and in our DOE weapons labs and plants. But the categories specified are really much too broad, some don't even refer to security-related issues. They include many workers who have no relevant knowledge or others who may be authorized to enter nuclear facilities but have no unsupervised access to actual material. Many of the positions within these categories already require a two- person rule, precluding actions by any one person to compromise protected items. This bill provides flexibility to allow the Secretary of Energy and General Gordon to set up a new polygraph program. Through careful examination of the positions with enough sensitivity to warrant polygraphs, I fully anticipate that the number of employees subject to polygraphs will be dramatically reduced while actually improving overall security. My bill seeks to address other concerns. Polygraphs are simply not viewed as scientifically credible by Laboratory staff. Those tests have been the major contributor to substantial degradation in worker morale at the labs. This is especially serious when the labs and plants are struggling to cope with the new challenges imposed by the absence of nuclear testing and with the need to recruit new scientific experts to replace an aging workforce. I should note that these staff concerns are not expressed about drug testing, which many already must take. They simply are concerned with entrusting their career to a procedure with questionable, in their minds, scientific validity. A study is in progress by the National Academy of Sciences that will go a long ways toward addressing this question about scientific credibility of polygraphs when they are used as a tool for screening large populations. By way of contrast, this use of polygraphs is in sharp contrast to their use in a targeted criminal investigation. That Academy's study will be completed in June 2002. Therefore, this bill sets up an interim program before the Academy's study is done and requires that a final program be established within 6 months after the study's completion. This bill addresses several concerns with the way in which polygraphs may be administered by the Department. For example, some employees are concerned that individual privacies, like medical conditions, are not being protected using the careful procedures developed for drug testing. And facility managers are concerned that polygraphs are sometimes administered without enough warning to ensure that work can continue in a safe manner in the sudden absence of an employee. And of greatest importance, the bill ensures that the results of a polygraph will not be the sole factor determining an employee's fitness for duty. With this bill, we can improve worker morale at our national security facilities by stopping unnecessarily broad application of polygraphs, while still providing the Secretary and General Gordon with enough flexibility to utilize polygraphs where reasonable. In addition, we set in motion a process, which will be based on the scientific evaluation of the National Academy, to implement an optimized plan to protect our national security.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. I may even take 5 or 10 more. I think maybe 15 minutes is more than I ought to use. First, I want my colleagues to know that I am not here as part of any dilatory tactics. I wish we could resolve this issue. But I thought that at least I ought to add a little bit to the notion of the kind of problem we have--that it is serious, which has the potential of very serious repercussions; or rather is this a typical problem on the Senate floor? I came to the Chamber because I suggest there is a sea change occurring in this hemisphere between the United States and Mexico. It is a great and positive sea change. If we look at our history, it is incredible that we have come to the year 2001 and we still have a great country on our border with which, for some reason or another, the United States has not had a long and abiding friendship with that has yielded benefits for both countries. We have been the victims of Mexican leadership that blamed America. There were a number of their Presidents who, when things didn't go well in Mexico, chose to say: It is America's problem. They are so wealthy that they ought to take care of things. They are letting all our workers go there and get jobs when we need them over here. Today, however, sitting right on our border is potentially the greatest trading partner we could have in the world. What we need to do is what the NAFTA agreement called for and let Mexico grow and prosper, so that as neighbors, we become gigantic partners in trade. Many of the sore spots between our countries will disappear if Mexico has a chance to grow and prosper. All of a sudden, there is on the horizon, as a result of a very different election in Mexico, a new kind of President. There is nobody writing about Mexico that says anything different than that. A new kind of President was elected in the most democratic election they have ever had. We all see him. We all admire him. I understand he was in the city of Chicago to have a meeting and to speak with those who might be concerned about Mexican problems, and 50,000 people showed up in Chicago to hear President Fox speak. What has he said? He has said this about America: You are not our problem. I am not going to blame America for our economic situation. I want to be a friend, neighbor, and partner; and I want the Mexican people to have their own jobs. He said: I want them to grow and prosper. All I want is fair treatment from the United States. Whether people like international agreements or not, we did approve and ratify an agreement with Mexico and Canada on this hemisphere regarding free trade. That is of the most serious type of agreement. I noted that my good friend, Senator Reid, was on the floor discussing with Senator Byrd the issue of a great book out there named ``John Adams,'' who was one of our great Founding Fathers. Would you believe that in the first 300 pages out of 600 pages of that book, which I am reading now, John Adams used the words ``America thrives on free trade.'' Think of this now; that was just after or during the Revolutionary War. ``Without free trade America cannot abide in this world, but we must sell our abundance in the world.'' John Adams said that more than one time. Look at how long it took us to get an understanding that, with reference to Mexico and our neighbor Canada, we would open our borders and get rid of taxes that impose limitations upon free trade and move ahead together. What else has the President of Mexico said? Believe it or not, he has actually said that he does not like the situation where Mexican men and women have to come here to find jobs. He does not like the situation with illegals coming here and getting jobs--not because he is angry at any of his people; he is saying they ought to be robust enough where that doesn't have to happen. He is saying: Let's work it out so we don't have the border conflicts over immigration that we are having today, which lead to big arguments and very serious sores between the two nations. Right now, that country is growing. In fact, their gross domestic product is growing faster than America's. I wish we could turn around and reach that soon. So here is a rare opportunity to let this man lead Mexico and let the Mexican people become our friends and openly be sympathetic to us right now, as they are under his leadership. I can't think of anything worse than to turn that relationship around and have the Mexican leadership say that we are discriminating and treating them unfairly and watch this relationship sink into some kind of condition that will not let us, during the term of this new President who gets along with them very well, achieve the significant things that we can achieve together in this hemisphere. It will take some time. I have come to the Chamber to give an example of how far we have come. First of all, we have traveled a long road on this issue. The House of Representatives voted to ban Mexican trucks' access to the United States--period--and then put all kinds of limitations, including you cannot spend any money to help certify them or the like, which means we close the borders. That is essentially what the House amendment means: No trucks going back and forth. Everybody knows that would be a very serious mistake. Some Senators here--minimal in number--had voiced their approval of this action of the House. Thankfully, Senator Murray did not. Senator Murray, chairman of this subcommittee, did not accept the House language, but proceeded to write her own language. She has attempted to craft something balanced to meet our obligation under NAFTA, while ensuring safety concerns. Frankly, this Senator is as concerned as anyone about safety, but I do not believe implementing the NAFTA agreement, rather than breaking it, is inconsistent with safety, nor that it need be. I believe NAFTA can be implemented in such a way that we do no violence to it and we do not breach it or break it and still we have significant safety advantages over what we have today or what we can expect today. I believe that is what we ought to do in due course. I suggest that probably there is no part of our transportation system that does more good for American trade and American commerce than the trucking industry, be it large or small, be it those who are members of the Teamsters or independents. The trucking industry in America spends a lot of money on making sure trucks are as safe as they can be. We are all having trouble getting people to be truckdrivers and trained to do the right job. For certain, the wages are pretty good and are moving in the right direction. America can be very proud of that. We ought to say we want those trucks to have an opportunity to go to Mexico, and we want Mexico to move in the direction of having trucks as safe as ours and, indeed, adopt safety regulations and certification rules together with Mexico, not separate, but together with them which will make sure we can say the same things are happening in Mexico with reference to their future. Now, I come to the point. Senator Murray, as I just said, tried very hard to produce an amendment. It is very detailed. We have a disagreement about what the amendment does. I still have people telling me it violates NAFTA; that is to say, if we were to adopt it and keep it in law, there would be a justification for Mexico to say: Since you do not abide by NAFTA, we have an opportunity to say we are not going to abide by some other things, and take their action against us. The Minister of Economy for the Republic of Mexico, with whom I had the privilege of meeting 5 months ago, has voiced his concern about the language. The President of the United States has voiced his concern about the language. I believe, after talking to fellow attorneys and those schooled in NAFTA, it does violate NAFTA, but I do not want somebody to think by saying that, I am accusing anybody of doing anything intentionally wrong. Not at all. It is just there are others who say it does not violate NAFTA. Here we are in the Senate Chamber with a group of Senators, albeit at this point smaller in number, saying it does violate NAFTA, and another group, larger, saying it does not. I submit, and actually since the two people who have the most to do with this are here, I submit that at least we ought to adopt an amendment--I am not saying this amendment-- but we ought to adopt an amendment that simply says it is not the intention of this legislation to violate NAFTA. It is pretty simple language. Do not bulk it up with a whole bunch of things. Just say, since both sides seem to say it does not violate NAFTA, why don't we adopt an amendment to say it is not the intention of any of these amendments that have to do with Mexican-American trucking to violate NAFTA.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am not the one moving the legislation along, nor am I the one trying to stall it. I am stating that I believe there is a common ground which at some point we ought to adopt unequivocally, and that is that there is no intention to violate NAFTA.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there a time limitation?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will conclude, hopefully not using the time I have allowed for myself. We have gotten to this point without anybody understanding how we got here. All of a sudden we are in an extreme logjam about something on which fundamentally we do not disagree. I repeat, there is probably no Senator here who wishes Mexico and America to break off their ongoing friendly relationships which move in the direction of Mexico growing and prospering and together having a great trading relationship. I have done the best I can to explain why free trade is important and why Canada, America, and Mexico can be important for all free peoples and how ludicrous it was we did not have this years ago, but now we have it. I have concluded there are not very many Senators who want to openly defy and break that and cause Mexico to say we can now have repercussions on commodities that America is selling to Mexico by imposing duties. I don't think anyone wants that. We want the two countries to be able to work out, under NAFTA, a set of rules and regulations built around safety, fairness, and nondiscrimination toward Mexico. That is very simple. That is what we ought to try to do. If I were to pose that question to Senators, I think there would be agreement. I came to the floor merely to suggest there ought to be a way to arrive at a conclusion that reaches the fundamentals. It is strange that two groups of Senators say they are doing the same thing yet the things they are saying we should do are very different. For instance, those who favor the Murray amendment language--and I have just praised the Senator for her hard work and for how far she has come from the House proposal--there is a larger group who would say there is no intention to break the law and to break it and violate it in this Murray amendment. It is interesting, on this side, if there are some people of bad faith--and I don't know of any of bad faith--it seems we are at each other's throats here. There appear to be relationships that are not working for some reason. On our side there are Senators--I am one--who think we do violate NAFTA with the amendment and its specificity, and it does discriminate against Mexico as compared with Canada, and we are not supposed to be doing that. If we both--good, solid groups of Senators--think in that manner, that it doesn't violate, it does violate, or vice versa, why not find a way to not violate NAFTA? I cannot do it, I am not in control of this legislation. Why not find a way to unequivocally say we are not violating, there is no intention to violate NAFTA, it is not our intention, we want NAFTA to be implemented-- language that is affirmative about what we are doing? Having said that, I have a pending amendment, and I would strike a portion of it. It is the amendment of which I am speaking. It says it is the intention that we not violate NAFTA in this bill. I cannot bring it up now. It is not my intention. Nor do I intend to wait around and use that as a dilatory tactic. Whatever time I reserved I yield back, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask to use 15 minutes of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself another 5 minutes, so I have 8\1/2\ minutes off my hour.

Mr. DOMENICI. Then how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that it not be counted.

Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Reid's comments count against my time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if I may have 15 minutes of Senator McCain's time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to formally pay tribute to the Navajo Code Talkers, who today received the Congressional Gold Medal. The award of the Congressional Gold Medal, one of our Nation's highest honors, is a fitting tribute to the Navajo Code Talkers for their relentless efforts, sacrifice and dedication during the decisive battles for the Pacific in World War II. I am proud and honored to witness our country's long overdue recognition of the Navajo Code Talkers' place in history. I salute my friend, Senator Bingaman, for leading the effort to bring national attention to the crucial role the Navajo Code Talkers played in the history of our country, and indeed, the world. The Navajo Code Talkers began as an idea by Phillip Johnston, a Marine Corps officer living in Los Angeles, CA, whose father was a Protestant missionary on the Navajo reservation. He was aware that the Marine Corps was deeply troubled over Japan's ability to break American codes. In late April of 1942, two recruiting officers were sent to the Navajo reservation. In May, 29 Navajos were sworn in at Ft. Wingate, NM, and taken to Camp Elliott where they became the first all-Navajo platoon in Marine Corps history--Platoon 382. This was not an easy recruitment. Many Navajos were willing to help, but not as many were literate in the English language. The Navajo recruits adjusted well to boot camp, considering few had ever been off the reservation before. Many had never met ``Anglos'' before. They fought across an ocean they had never seen, against an enemy they had never met. To ensure their own land would not be in danger, they joined in the effort with the United States. The Navajo Code Talkers made a major contribution to WWII. They provided instantaneous technical, detailed communication. None of their codes were written; they were only memorized. The Navajo Code Talkers came to be known as extremely dependable. They were called upon for tasks other than just code talking; they also had duties as Marines. The Navajo code was used almost exclusively during the battle of Iwo Jima. They were credited for sending and receiving over 800 messages with out an error. ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima,'' stated Major Howard M. Conner, signal officer for the Fifth Division. Eventually there would be over 400 Marine Code Talkers who would play a vital part in the United States winning the war against Japan. In fact, the Navajo Code Talkers would participate in every assault the Marines took part in from late 1942 to 1945. During the 3 years the Navajo Code Talkers participated in the war, Japanese Intelligence was able to break almost every U.S. Army and Army Air Corps code but not once were they able to break the Navajo code. The Navajo Code Talkers are becoming more widely known by appearing in Veterans Day events, special honoring ceremonies, and there was even a Navajo G.I. Joe code talker toy developed. And now, a Hollywood film is being developed. So I add my voice to the much-deserved recognition and appreciation going out today to the Navajo Code Talkers for their relentless efforts, sacrifice and dedication in the successful outcomes in the battle for the Pacific in World War II.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it isn't that this subject matter should be dealt with briefly, but I think I can express my concerns in 5 minutes. I hope others are as concerned as I about this issue. Senator Murray is here on the floor. She is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. She has worked very hard to accommodate this bill through language with reference to Mexico and Mexican trucking and busing between our borders under NAFTA. She has worked very hard to get something much better than that which was passed in the House and she kept things from passing in our subcommittee that would be much worse than the arrangement we now have in the bill with her amendment. I would like to say that the United States should be quite pleased today that we have a new relationship growing between the Republic of Mexico and the United States. It is obvious everywhere you go in Mexico with everyone you talk to, and with everyone you talk to in the border States, that the arrival of President Fox has brought a whole new attitude between these two great countries. For instance, in the 29 years or so that I have been here, there have been four Presidents of Mexico, but not a single one was willing to say that the economic problems of Mexico are not America's problems, and we have to solve our own. President Fox is the first President to say we had better improve the permit system for people coming from his country to work here because he believes they should do this in a legal manner instead of a manner that leaves many Mexicans here in positions of hiding out while they hold jobs and they can't return home--some wonderful ideas about what should happen on our border in terms of cleaning up the border which has grown topsy- turvy. Law enforcement can now trust Mexican law enforcement for the first time in modern times. The litany goes on. I, for one, hope the Senators from both sides of the aisle will find a way to sit down and draft a provision on the busing and trucking access to the United States pursuant to the NAFTA arrangements. There are some who have said their trucks aren't safe enough, that they don't have the right kind of insurance--and a rather major litany. I suggest we had better be careful that we are not couching these things in a way so as to avoid what it really is. It appears to me it is borderline discrimination against Mexican enterprise. There has to be a better way to solve it than we have solved it in this Transportation bill, but in a way that will let Mexico and Mexico's leaders say we are equal partners with the United States, and that we are going to be treated the same way as Canada. Canada, America, and Mexico are the three partners. I believe to do otherwise is to say to the Mexican people and the new President: We don't care about you; we don't even care if we discriminate against you; we have a hot issue, and we are going to pass something; and maybe in a few years we can work something out with you, Mr. President of Mexico, as a NAFTA partner of the United States. I believe the time is now, on this bill. The President has said he will veto the bill with the Murray language in it. That is official. We ought to sit down and work out something for them so it won't be vetoed. There are great American transportation issues and problems for every Senator and for every State. We ought to get the bill passed. The way to get it passed is not to send it to the President with language he already said he will veto and offend Mexico unjustifiably. What we are doing is unjustifiable. Let's get it resolved. There is a simple proposition around. Let's come up with a California solution. I am pretty familiar with the various solutions. Let us in the Senate say we stand ready to help. I hope we can do this and pass the bill in due course--the full bill--and put some legislation in it that will protect Mexico against discrimination in trucking and busing and allow them to grow and prosper, but at the same time offer as much assurance as we can that their vehicles are going to be safe, and include whatever other requirements we need to ensure they are treated like trucks coming from Canada. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of permitting Mexican motor carriers full access to the United States in a safe, fair, and timely manner. The North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in January 1994. The agreement calls on each country to apply national treatment to services of each of the trading partners. NAFTA required that Mexican trucks have full access to the United States by January 1, 2001. Rather than prepare ourselves to meet this obligation, we foolishly prohibited our southern partner's trucks beyond 20 miles from the border. An arbitration panel ruled that the United States violated NAFTA, and today we face the possibility of trade sanctions in excess of $1 billion per year of noncompliance. Some hope to completely bar Mexican domiciled motor carriers, assuming that because they are Mexican, then they are necessarily unsafe. I applaud Senator Murray's attempt to craft a balance to ensure that Mexican trucks are safe, while meeting our national obligation. As a Senator from a border state, I am deeply concerned about the safety of Mexican trucks. However, I do not believe that we should use safety as an excuse to inappropriately discriminate against Mexico. As such, I have some fundamental concerns about the language of Senator Murray's proposal. Principally, I am troubled that it seems to harbor a deep mistrust of Mexico. The United States and Mexico both agree that Mexico must comply with U.S. laws, and that it is the United States' right to enforce those laws. Why then, must we impose additional and unreasonable requirements before permitting Mexican motor carriers access? NAFTA requires that each member country give national treatment to the other member countries. That means that Mexico and Canada must abide by U.S. safety standards when in the U.S. Canada has been doing so for some time, and Mexico is prepared and eagerly awaits the opportunity to do so. However, the current language contains a host of provisions requiring the DOT Inspector General to review the accuracy of Mexico's regulations and information. These requirements are not only wholly offensive and paternalistic, but fall far outside the purview of the IG. Furthermore, the Department of Transportation inspects Canadian or U.S. motor carriers' facilities only when there is evidence of impropriety or a record of safety violations. Yet, Senator Murray's provisions would require that DOT inspect every Mexican carrier's facilities before any permission is granted. In short, this is discrimination, plain and simple. The Administration recognized that the current Senate language is discriminatory and would violate NAFTA, and even issued a veto threat if such language is retained. I understand that many are concerned about the safety of Mexican trucks, particularly since some statistics show that they have greater out of service rates than U.S. trucks. I favor inspecting trucks to advance legitimate safety concerns, and recognize that a direct correlation exists between the condition of Mexican commercial trucks entering the U.S. and the level of inspection resources at the border. California is widely regarded as having the best inspection practices. As such, the out of service rate for Mexican trucks in California is commensurate to the rate for U.S. trucks. Even the International Brotherhood of Teamsters support the California inspection system. In a letter to President Bush, Mr. James Hoffa stated, ``Currently, California provides a model of what a proper border inspection program can achieve.'' If we all agree that California's inspection system works efficiently, then perhaps we should model the Federal inspection program after it, and refrain from treating our southern NAFTA partner with such distrust. Mexico has not indicated that it is unwilling to abide by our laws. In fact, Mexico has stated that it will subject its trucks to inspections more intense and more frequent than our own. The issue is whether Mexican trucks on U.S. roads meet U.S. safety standards. Inspecting trucks should be the focus of an inspection program, rather than inspecting facilities in Mexico without just cause. Mr. President, I stand in strong opposition to language that would discriminate against our southern partners and support proposals that would ensure the safety of U.S. highways in a fair and timely manner. I am confident that an equitable solution may be reached that will ensure safe roads and meet obligations under NAFTA, and diffuse the threat of veto. I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for yielding me 5 minutes, and also the Senators who yielded me their time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed now for 5 minutes, and then return to the regular order.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the bravery and fortitude of the Sixth Naval Beach Battalion, many of whom gave their lives for their country on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Recently, a small group of the living members of the Battalion gathered in Normandy, France to unveil a commemorative plaque dedicated to their fellow sailors who paid the ultimate price for the defense of liberty. This memorial will serve as a small reminder of the tremendous sacrifice that these men made in order to secure the freedoms that we, as a nation, now enjoy. Unfortunately, for many years, the Sixth Naval Beach Battalion was known as the ``Forgotten Sailors.'' While many of its members were individually recognized for their bravery, the Battalion as a whole had never been recognized. However, thanks to the persistent efforts of its living members, the Battalion was finally honored last year with the Presidential Unit Citation. This great honor was presented to the Battalion at its annual reunion last year, and I am proud that the valiance of these men has finally been recognized. The World War II generation is frequently referred to as America's ``Greatest Generation,'' and this is no more true of the Sixth Naval Beach Battalion. They landed on Omaha Beach early in the morning of June 6 and faced extraordinary peril on that historic day. Yet, the Battalion demonstrated its courage and fought gallantly despite overwhelming odds. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of the members of the Battalion, both living and deceased, for the hard-fought victory over tyranny that was achieved on that day. I would like to share my gratitude for the bravery and selflessness of the Sixth Naval Beach Battalion. I would hope that America never forgets the great sacrifice that the Battalion's members made in the defense of our liberty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech given by Lieutenant Commander Joseph Vaghi at the unveiling of the commemorative plaque be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no further amendments. I thank the seven members of the staff on both sides who worked diligently on a very complicated bill. On Senator Reid's staff: Drew Willison, Roger Cockrell, Nancy Olkewicz; members of my staff: Tammy Perrin, Jim Crum, Camille Anderson, and Clay Sell. The Senator's staff has been a pleasure to work with, and I hope mine has. I thank you for the pleasantries and the way we have been able to work this bill out.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my friend from Alaska for his observations and for his question. As the Senator knows, I too am a great fan of the development of the GT-MHR in Russia and indeed, I was the Senator that initiated the first Federal funding for this program. The question is a fair one and I will have to say that his observations and the conclusion he draws from them are correct. I agree that a substantial portion of the $7 million in funding should indeed be put to good use in commercializing the GT-MHR which is being designed with great cost- effectiveness and success in Russia.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and honor that I rise today to introduce a bill to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces have made immeasurable sacrifices to this great Nation. Veterans have secured liberty for citizens of the United States since time and immemorial. Their sacrifices and those of their families must not be forgotten. These veterans deserve to be buried in a National Cemetery with their fellow comrades. However, the Santa Fe National Cemetery, which serves the Northern two thirds of New Mexico, is rapidly approaching maximum capacity. Some years ago, the Senate passed my legislation to extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery by authorizing the use of flat grave markers. However, that legislation was a temporary measure, rather than a solution since the Cemetery will lack sufficient plot space by 2008. The solution that I am seeking is to designate a new National Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. I believe all New Mexicans are proud of the Santa Fe National Cemetery. Since its humble beginnings, it has grown from 39/100 of an acre to its current 77 acres. The cemetery first opened in 1868 and was designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Service men and women from all of our Nation's wars hold an honored spot within its hallowed ground. With that proud history in mind, we must find another suitable site to serve as the last resting place for New Mexico's veterans. I would like to thank Congresswoman Heather Wilson for bringing this important issue to my attention, and for introducing companion legislation earlier this year. The need to begin planning soon cannot be overstated. Half of New Mexico's 180,000 veterans live in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area. Interment rates continue to rise with the passing of our older veterans and will peak in 2008. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. The bill simply directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a National Cemetery in the Albuquerque metropolitan area and to submit a report to Congress setting forth a schedule for establishing the Cemetery. In conclusion I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and honor that I rise today to introduce a bill to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. The men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces have made immeasurable sacrifices to this great Nation. Veterans have secured liberty for citizens of the United States since time and immemorial. Their sacrifices and those of their families must not be forgotten. These veterans deserve to be buried in a National Cemetery with their fellow comrades. However, the Santa Fe National Cemetery, which serves the Northern two thirds of New Mexico, is rapidly approaching maximum capacity. Some years ago, the Senate passed my legislation to extend the useful life of the Santa Fe National Cemetery by authorizing the use of flat grave markers. However, that legislation was a temporary measure, rather than a solution since the Cemetery will lack sufficient plot space by 2008. The solution that I am seeking is to designate a new National Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. I believe all New Mexicans are proud of the Santa Fe National Cemetery. Since its humble beginnings, it has grown from 39/100 of an acre to its current 77 acres. The cemetery first opened in 1868 and was designated a National Cemetery in April of 1875. Service men and women from all of our Nation's wars hold an honored spot within its hallowed ground. With that proud history in mind, we must find another suitable site to serve as the last resting place for New Mexico's veterans. I would like to thank Congresswoman Heather Wilson for bringing this important issue to my attention, and for introducing companion legislation earlier this year. The need to begin planning soon cannot be overstated. Half of New Mexico's 180,000 veterans live in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area. Interment rates continue to rise with the passing of our older veterans and will peak in 2008. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Albuquerque, NM. The bill simply directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a National Cemetery in the Albuquerque metropolitan area and to submit a report to Congress setting forth a schedule for establishing the Cemetery. In conclusion I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the skill and artistry of those involved in the 2001 Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Specifically, the festival focused on the Masters of Building Arts program featuring craftspeople skilled in the various styles of the building trades. I am pleased to announce that Cornerstones Community Partnerships of Santa Fe, NM, participated in this annual celebration of folk art. Cornerstones Community Partnerships is a nonprofit organization serving to continue the unique culture and traditions of the southwest through preservation of traditional building techniques. As part of the festival, Cornerstones presented two restoration projects, the San Esteban del Rey Church in Acoma Pueblo, NM, and the San Jose Mission in Upper Rociada, NM. Both presentations highlighted the rich cultural techniques used in New Mexican architecture. I commend the skills of these artists and artisans that participated in the folklife festival. They truly preserve our link to the past.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about a group of Americans, some of whom are in my State. Some are in Arizona. Some are in Wyoming. Some are in Connecticut. These people have only one thing in common: they are the beneficiaries of an American law that is called RCRA, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. A number of us were part of getting that law passed. It was a recognition that there were certain Americans, including uranium miners and some others, who very well might have been overexposed to low-level radiation when they were mining in uranium mines that weren't aerated--where they did not have enough air conditioning and not enough clean air. They may have very well during their lives breathed in radiation and contracted serious illnesses. Some might have died. Some may today be suffering from cancer or other diseases. In any event, this law was passed. It was kind of heralded as a very good commitment by the Government and very simple. You didn't have to get a lawyer for these claims. It was limited to $100,000 in exchange for making it simple and setting some standards: You can come in and prove your case. You could probably prove your claim in a relatively short period of time. Lo and behold, if Congress put the money up, you would get your check. You could get it as a widow. You could get it as one who was sick. You could get it as anyone entitled to it under the statute. It worked pretty well for a while. Then something very ghastly happened for the beneficiaries. Pretty soon, they started going to the Justice Department which has charge of these claims and asking them for money. The Justice Department told this growing group of Americans: We don't have any money. They said: What do you mean? Here is the law. They said: Well, Congress didn't put up the money. We ran out. So you will not be worried, why don't we give you an IOU. Here is your assurance that the Government says it owes you $100,000. These people started coming to see their Senators--not only me but Senator Bingaman and other Senators--saying, time is passing. I am getting sicker. I may even die, and I have an IOU from this great big American Government. Why can't they pay me? Let me say in this Chamber that it is embarrassing to say it even here, but it is more embarrassing to say it to the victims. There is a big series of discussions going on between committees --even appropriations subcommittees--as to which one ought to appropriate the money. In the meantime, no money is appropriated. People walk around with the IOUs filing their claims, and they are working on them day by day. And another law passes. It is for a larger group of Americans who come in to adjudicate their claims for exposure to low-level radiation. It is for radiation where we had uranium in a Richmond, VA, mine or perhaps in Paducah, KY, and various places in Ohio. For this larger group of people, those claims are still being worked. We say: Well, time has passed, and maybe these claims should be a little higher. So they are awarded $150,000 if they can prove the claim that they are either totally disabled or are an heir. Congress in that case--coming out of a different committee--made that program an entitlement. Even the occupant of the Chair, who is a new Senator, would understand that those claims are paid without anybody appropriating it--just like the Social Security check or your veterans check. Here is one group of Americans filing their claims. Some of them are already adjudicated; we stamp out a check, while over here another group of Americans carry around IOUs. A number of Senators have been working on this issue. A number of House Members have been working on it. My friend, Senator Bingaman, has been working on it. But essentially our last opportunity to cease the embarrassment and do something half fair was to put language in the supplemental appropriations bill that would see to it that for any claims already finished where people are carrying around the IOUs, or any that are completed for the rest of this year, there is money for them. We provided that in the Senate bill on supplemental appropriations. Frankly, we even had to find a way to pay for it because it had to be budget neutral. So we found a way to pay for it. I did, out of a program I started a few years ago. I said: It is not being used, so cancel it so we have room. Today, at about 10:30, 11 o'clock this morning, after a number of days of conferring, the House-Senate committee on that bill approved it. It should come back before us very soon and get approval. It has language in it that says whatever amount of money is needed for those holding those IOUs and for those finishing up their claims by the end of this fiscal year, they will have the money in the Justice Department to pay it. I say to the Senate, I know it is difficult, unless you have this problem, for you to be as concerned as I or those in my particular region. But I thought maybe I should tell the whole Senate because it is time they know that this is a festering embarrassment. Is it solved? No. The appropriations bill that is going to put in money for next year only carries a small amount of money because it expects, as does the President in his budget, to convert this program to an automatic payment program called a mandatory or an entitlement. But we have not been able to get that done yet. So I have said it for a second reason. I hope the committees that are considering it--and I will do my best to go see the committees to make myself understood, and take with me whatever evidence I need to convince the chairmen and ranking members they ought to make this an entitlement. But in the meantime, the people who have claims right up until the end of this year will get paid. It will take a couple weeks, so they should not be coming into our offices saying thank you yet, nor should they come in and ask where is the money. They just have to wait a little while. It takes a little bit of time. I thought, since we see them and we hear them, that maybe I should let the Senate vicariously hear them--you can't see them, but you can hear them through me. What we have to do is not let another year pass because this is a problem, whether or not you come from a State that has ``down-winders'' and/or uranium miners; this carries with it some very serious kinds of overtones for the U.S. Government. You create a program. You tell people: We have been sorry for you up until now, but we will give you a little claim here--$100,000--and then, when you prove it up, you will take it, and you no longer have any claims, and we have said that we have paid you. It is just not right that you do not do it, just not right. It is growing. The newspeople are starting to carry it. I guess they are starting to carry: ``Congress finally puts up the money today.'' That is good. But I hope there is a lingering interest in how we fix it. It should not be that 6 months into next year somebody exposed to low-level radiation at one of America's uranium enrichment plants proves their claim and gets an automatic check, but yet you have these people who might have worked 35 years ago, for 20 years, in a nonaerated uranium mine, where the U.S. Government, even through its heralded Atomic Energy Commission, which I know a lot about, made a mistake with reference to the quality of air in the mines--where acknowledgements were made many years later; and it is hard to get the acknowledgement, but we finally got it--yet a mistake was made. So I thought it would be good, while we had nothing to do in this Senate Chamber, that maybe we could spread this story of what has happened and say thank you to the Appropriations Committee for the emergency measure today. And we look forward to one of our committees passing a bill that will make these few remaining people who are entitled to it know they will get their money when their claim is adjudicated.