Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say I am very pleased this afternoon to be on the floor with Senator Conrad. I think those who watch the Senate as it conducts business are probably, in the next 3 weeks, going to see a lot of us because we will have the whole budget up here for at least a week. Senator Conrad manages it for the other side of the aisle, and I manage it on this side. I am very hopeful that, while this is a very interesting and somewhat difficult issue today, we will handle it in a very civil manner between the two of us as to what we ought to do. First of all, everybody should know that when we offered a lockbox on Social Security on this side--it is the only one you could really call a lockbox--the other side of the aisle opposed it because it was too rigid. And they found out from the Secretary of the Treasury it may have been even too difficult for the U.S. Government to manage in terms of managing its debts. So we have come from that point to what we generally call a lockbox here, to make any expenditures from that fund that are not authorized in that law itself subject to a 60-vote point of order. That generally is called a lockbox because it will call it to the attention of those affected, and it will require a supermajority to vote for it. That is what our amendment does for both Social Security and Medicare. But what it does in both programs is exactly what the House did. It passed by over 400 votes. Essentially, it says only for Social Security and/or Social Security reforms. And on Medicare it says Medicare Part A and/or reforms. My distinguished friend on the other side of the aisle would say we take Medicare off budget. We no longer get to count it as an asset of the budget. And in addition, it cannot be used for the reforms that are going to be necessary when we improve that program and add to it prescription drugs. So the difference is big. As a matter of fact, it is as if my friend on the other side of the aisle had concocted an approach so we cannot get a tax cut because, for some reason, the $1.6 trillion tax cut just is not within the grasp of those on the other side. They do not want to give that back to the American people. In a moment, or in closing arguments, I will share with you the fact that it is a very responsible tax cut. It is very small in proportion to the total tax take of the United States of America. But for now let me just, again, discuss these two issues. First, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Kent Conrad, my opponent here would take Medicare off budget and not permit it to be used for reform and say to us, use it to pay down the debt. I want to just take a minute to talk about the debt because everybody ought to understand. The President of the United States has asked us to reduce the debt of the United States from $3.2 trillion to $1.2 trillion--a $2 trillion reduction. The President says--as did President Clinton before him who also said, through his experts--that is all we can pay down without paying a big penalty and costing the American taxpayers money. This little chart I have here shows what is going to happen to the ownership of American debt as we buy down the debt and attempt to minimize it. You can see, the red is all foreign investment and foreigners. That grows because they do not want to sell the American bonds. They hold on to them. I understand that if we said, you are going to pay those people anyway, even though they do not want to sell--they are under an arrangement they like in terms of the terms of the bonds--then what we would have to do is we would have to pay a premium that would cost the American people a 21-percent premium on the money we pay to them to buy down the bonds. We will pay a 21-percent premium. Isn't it amazing that we are being asked to vote for an amendment that, on the one hand, is calculated to prevent us from getting a tax reduction for the American people, and, on the other hand, unintentionally, I assume, we are going to have to pay that money at a 21-percent premium to foreign countries and foreigners from whom we are going to buy these bonds because we are going to say to them: If you don't want to sell them, we want you to sell them anyway. It is similar to a marketplace gun you put there and say: Sell them to us. And, of course, we will throw away money in the process. The amendment that will be voted on second is their lockbox and its operation. It is a lockbox for which everybody in this Senate has voted. It requires a 60-vote majority to use any of the Social Security trust fund for anything but Social Security or Social Security reform. It is the same lockbox on Medicare that we voted for heretofore on a number of occasions that says, Medicare cannot be used--I say to the Finance Committee chairman, who is bound by all these rules--for anything other than Medicare and/or Medicare reform. I note the presence of the chairman of the Finance Committee. I note my friend, who is on the other side of the aisle on this issue, is a member of the Finance Committee. They have a very important job. They are going to have to decide whether they want to reform Medicare. As a matter of fact, it is most interesting, for those who are interested in this debate, we had not had a formal Medicare reform put forth by the former President for 8 years. We have not had one put forth by the other side of the aisle, except in the Breaux-Frist amendment or bill which came out of a commission. We still do not have one from the other side of the aisle. I do not know why. I am very hopeful the Finance Committee will, indeed, produce a bipartisan Medicare reform proposal--under the Domenici amendment, which is the second amendment, that can be done--because without reforms, the Medicare trust fund is doomed. There will not be enough money for the senior citizens. As the chart demonstrates, by 2010, the spending exceeds the income; by 2018, the spending exceeds the income plus interest; and by 2026, the trust fund is depleted. We already have heard testimony from experts that our tax reduction of $1.6 trillion does not have anything to do with that. What has to do with that is that you must reform the Medicare system in order to get your job done. I close by saying, I think the Medicare trust fund should be used for Medicare reform. I do not think it should be used to pay huge premiums to foreign countries and foreigners by trying to coerce them to buy the debt. My last observation is, Medicare is a very mixed program. Part of it is paid out of the trust fund until there is no money. Then what will we do? And part of it, a big part of it, including doctors, home health care, and a long list of items, is paid for under Part B, which is the general taxpayer. How would you split them apart and take one and put it off budget, to be used for debt service, and the whole other one just left there to be paid by the taxpayer? I believe reform should include a process that would envision both of those problem areas and reform them, to the future benefit of our senior citizens. I have great admiration for my friend on the other side, but I do think on this one, it is subject to a point of order and we ought to let it die. We ought to vote on the second one and approve it because the House did it, and it could become law because it would be the same as theirs. It is a very good way to attempt to save Medicare for nothing other than Medicare. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am joining my co-sponsors, Senators Bingaman, Frist, Lieberman, Snowe, Kennedy and Bayh in introducing the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 2001'' This bill makes the Research Tax Credit permanent and significantly improves the structure of the Credit. I am very pleased that President Bush has already endorsed a permanent Credit in his Agenda for Tax Relief. In the discussion of his tax package, President Bush notes that: The credit encourages the technological developments that are an important component of economic growth. . . . This should help spur the sustained, long-term investment in R&D that America needs to develop the next generation of critical technologies. I wholeheartedly agree. I am also pleased to join with Senator Hatch and many cosponsors in his bill to permanently extend the research credit and to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit. Today I want to suggest that we go a little further than both of these proposals in revising the Research Tax Credit. We should use the enthusiasm toward making the credit permanent to also improve it. In the process, we can significantly help the innovation process in our nation at the same time that we strengthen our universities and small businesses. Advanced technologies drive a significant part of our nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has frequently reinforced the critical dependence between advanced technology and our economic strength. Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the nation. Today, we are introducing legislation to improve the Research Tax Credit. The single most important change in our bill is to make the Credit permanent, as the President proposes. But other parts of the Credit would benefit from improvements. For example, the current Credit references a company's research in 1984-88. That leads to situations where two companies doing the same research today receive different credits, depending on what they did in 1984. As another example, now there is a ``Basic Research Credit'' allowed, but rarely used because of the way it is written. We could be using this section to encourage unversity research, as I have done in this bill. We also provide incentives for research to be done with research consortia. In summary, this bill incorporates the improvements suggested by the President and in other current bills, and it goes further to strengthen the Credit. With this new bill, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire more people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce. Madam President, I will speak on the subject of the credit that American businesses get for research which is part of the Tax Code. I hope the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is aware this year the research tax credit has different support this year because the President of the United States has asked we make permanent this very important part of our Tax Code that gives American companies, large and small, an opportunity to take part of their research and apply for a research tax credit. I am introducing a bill today that improves the tax credit. The President asked us to extend it so businesses will know where they are, which has been your position for years. I am sure the Senator will do that. Today I introduce a bill for 8 Senators on both sides of the aisle. We think it has to be improved in two or three ways. We want to make sure in America today that research by businesses, being done with universities, with laboratories, with a consortia of two or three companies and universities, two or three companies and laboratories, we want to make sure that research fits the definition of a research tax credit. That is what the big change has been. Companies are not doing everything in house. They are doing it with universities, with other companies. They do not all get the tax credit, although it is part of the American marketplace, unless we modify the current tax credit. This bill we introduce does that and six or seven other things to make it more functional. We will be calling it to the attention of your staff as a separate item. Although we support Senator Hatch's bill that says continue it, make it permanent, we think it ought to be improved to fit what is truly the way American businesses are doing business today in the marketplace of science. I ask the bill for myself, Senator Bingaman, and seven other Senators be sent to the desk and appropriately referred.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I speak of the size of the tax cut the President of the United States has asked us to adopt. The occupant of the chair knows the Senator from New Mexico is lucky in that I have a wonderful person at home who asks me a lot of questions about what I am doing. It is a great sounding board. I think the occupant knows that is my wife. My wife spoke to me about 10 days ago as an average citizen because she and four friends, all of whom were women, stopped by after getting together to have a cup of coffee. There were questions raised by these nonpolitical women--not necessarily Republicans--as to why such a big tax cut? Why can't we wait? She addressed the question to me. I said I think it is time the American people deserve to be told the size of this tax cut. I have a chart. I don't know if it has been seen on the Senate floor, but it is interesting. The red area indicates $1.6 trillion as the entire tax cut alongside what we select in taxes during the same period of time. It is most interesting. During the same time we are asking the American people be given back $1.6 trillion, we will collect $28 trillion in taxes. Maybe that puts it a little bit more in perspective, that it is not such a giant tax cut in proportion to the taxes America collects. The green portion of the chart is broken into two. The bottom is individual income taxes, and we have corporate income taxes, and other taxes. This is what we collect. This from individuals--14, and 28 total. Over 10 years, it isn't such a very large tax reduction. We might also suggest by way of words that both President Kennedy and President Reagan cut taxes. Incidentally, both of them--one Democrat and one Republican--cut marginal rates. They reduced the top rates. They reduced both the middle rates and the low rates for the same reason. President Kennedy was advised that he ought to do it because of the fact the American economy had to be built up and grow and prosper, and one of the things he ought to do as a Federal official was lower the marginal tax rates. Lo and behold, that is what a Democrat President did. He did that without the surplus we have. Isn't it amazing? We are talking about being sure of everything that is going to happen; that we are going to have enough money to pay down the debt. There were deficits in each year of the tax cut of President Kennedy. We have a predicted surplus of $5.6 trillion. Second, the size of the Kennedy tax cut was twice the size in proportion to the American economy. Then Ronald Reagan did marginal rate cuts also along with some other things. Congress loaded it up, so to speak. But marginal rates were reduced substantially. That was three times the size of this tax cut. Our President, with reference to asking for a tax reduction for the American people, has been certainly modest in what he is asking for in comparison to the total taxes. Second, some people wonder why we do this over 10 years. We want to suggest to the American people that it is permanent, and at the same time, we want to suggest to ourselves the money is not even going to be collected in the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years. It is just staying with the American people. So it won't be around here. It won't be in the budget of the United States. It would have already disappeared from our grasp. We will not have it to spend. The American people will have it in their paychecks, in their profits of small business, which they distribute as individuals. It will go to them. There is nothing better than doing this, and I say do it as quickly as we can to send a signal to at least the part of the American economy that is not doing well, and a few States aren't doing well. My friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, was telling me today about Ohio having some real economic problems. It is far different than New Mexico's problems. They need a signal from the Congress and the President that we care about them, that we are concerned about them, and that we are cutting marginal rates so as to give some credibility to our concern about the economic future in many parts of the United States, and, generally speaking, over the next decade, the status of our economy in general so people and families will have a better chance. It will be an important 10 years in terms of job opportunities and consistent paychecks. That is what that is. I hope everybody knows this is a reasonable way to do it. Maybe we will get around soon to satisfying some who have a little bit of concern about whether we are paying down the debt, and whether we will continue paying it down over time. They are asking for some kind of trigger mechanism. Obviously, this Senator hasn't seen one that will be in place. Yet that will leave the effectiveness of the tax in place. Clearly, I say to those who want a trigger that you can't do a trigger that triggers every year because then the people won't be getting the benefit of this tax cut. They can't buy a car and pay because you only get the tax cut for one year, and that is a ``maybe'' tax cut. It is not a real tax cut. One year at a time won't work, especially if you want the effect of marginal rates, which means lowering at every level a significant amount, though the lower level is getting a bigger percentage of the reduction. While I haven't seen any that leave the effectiveness of the tax in place, I am willing to work with Members, the distinguished Senator, Ms. Snowe, the occupant of the chair, many others, and Democrats working on this issue. I say let's continue working on it. There may be some way to do some collections, but certainly it should not be every year. There should be a broad-based look at this so we look at spending also. We should look at the debt if we are going to be doing it. That is the conversation I wanted to have about the budget and tax cut. I want to add to that. It is pretty obvious the Committee on Budget of the Senate, which now has 11 Democrats and 11 Republicans--it should be pretty obvious to everyone that we can't get a bill out of that committee that gives the President an opportunity to have his tax measure considered by the Finance Committee. You understand that the budget resolution just permits it. This makes room for it. In this case, up to $1.6 billion. It doesn't say you have to pass $1.6 billion. But we can't do it in the committee because we are tied. On every matter of real substance regarding this budget we are going to be tied. The taxes are well known by those who have worked with us. If it is in the Budget Committee for a long time, come a certain date--I believe it is April 1--statute of law says if you haven't produced a budget, then you can call one up here. The Parliamentarian is familiar with that as is the occupant of the chair. I haven't given up on the committee doing it. I want to have more conversations. But if we can't come in closer than we are now, I don't intend to have a week's worth of votes pro and con, each one being 11-11, and then pass one 12-10. It isn't going to be very meaningful. I may let everybody talk for one day, let April 1 arrive, and then call up the budget. We will be working with a number of people on that premise.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 515 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am joining my co-sponsors, Senators Bingaman, Frist, Lieberman, Snowe, Kennedy and Bayh in introducing the ``Private Sector Research and Development Investment Act of 2001'' This bill makes the Research Tax Credit permanent and significantly improves the structure of the Credit. I am very pleased that President Bush has already endorsed a permanent Credit in his Agenda for Tax Relief. In the discussion of his tax package, President Bush notes that: The credit encourages the technological developments that are an important component of economic growth. . . . This should help spur the sustained, long-term investment in R&D that America needs to develop the next generation of critical technologies. I wholeheartedly agree. I am also pleased to join with Senator Hatch and many cosponsors in his bill to permanently extend the research credit and to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit. Today I want to suggest that we go a little further than both of these proposals in revising the Research Tax Credit. We should use the enthusiasm toward making the credit permanent to also improve it. In the process, we can significantly help the innovation process in our nation at the same time that we strengthen our universities and small businesses. Advanced technologies drive a significant part of our nation's economic strength. Our economy and our standard of living depend on a constant influx of new technologies, processes, and products from our industries. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has frequently reinforced the critical dependence between advanced technology and our economic strength. Many countries provide labor at lower costs than the United States. Thus, as any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor frequently find ways to undercut our production costs. We maintain our economic strength only by constantly improving our products through innovation. Maintaining and improving our national ability to innovate is critically important to the nation. Today, we are introducing legislation to improve the Research Tax Credit. The single most important change in our bill is to make the Credit permanent, as the President proposes. But other parts of the Credit would benefit from improvements. For example, the current Credit references a company's research in 1984-88. That leads to situations where two companies doing the same research today receive different credits, depending on what they did in 1984. As another example, now there is a ``Basic Research Credit'' allowed, but rarely used because of the way it is written. We could be using this section to encourage unversity research, as I have done in this bill. We also provide incentives for research to be done with research consortia. In summary, this bill incorporates the improvements suggested by the President and in other current bills, and it goes further to strengthen the Credit. With this new bill, we will significantly strengthen incentives for private companies to undertake research that leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result will be stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. Those stronger companies will hire more people at higher salaries with real benefits to our national economy and workforce. Madam President, I will speak on the subject of the credit that American businesses get for research which is part of the Tax Code. I hope the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is aware this year the research tax credit has different support this year because the President of the United States has asked we make permanent this very important part of our Tax Code that gives American companies, large and small, an opportunity to take part of their research and apply for a research tax credit. I am introducing a bill today that improves the tax credit. The President asked us to extend it so businesses will know where they are, which has been your position for years. I am sure the Senator will do that. Today I introduce a bill for 8 Senators on both sides of the aisle. We think it has to be improved in two or three ways. We want to make sure in America today that research by businesses, being done with universities, with laboratories, with a consortia of two or three companies and universities, two or three companies and laboratories, we want to make sure that research fits the definition of a research tax credit. That is what the big change has been. Companies are not doing everything in house. They are doing it with universities, with other companies. They do not all get the tax credit, although it is part of the American marketplace, unless we modify the current tax credit. This bill we introduce does that and six or seven other things to make it more functional. We will be calling it to the attention of your staff as a separate item. Although we support Senator Hatch's bill that says continue it, make it permanent, we think it ought to be improved to fit what is truly the way American businesses are doing business today in the marketplace of science. I ask the bill for myself, Senator Bingaman, and seven other Senators be sent to the desk and appropriately referred.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Now let's get down to tomorrow afternoon and vote because on the bankruptcy bill, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Kent Conrad, ranking member, put an amendment on with reference to the Medicare trust fund and the Medicare program. This is side by side. There will be another amendment offered by Senator Sessions. I believe my staff helped put it together. I was in another meeting. Senator Sessions introduced it. I want everybody to know it is, indeed, what I would recommend. I would like very much tomorrow to make sure all Senators understand that we helped prepare it and are very pleased Senator Sessions was on the floor. We will call it the Sessions-Domenici amendment. I want everyone to know, just as a matter of fairness to the distinguished Senator on the Democrat side, Mr. Kent Conrad, that, in fact, the point of order will be raised. It is not being raised now, but I believe a point of order will be agreed to. That amendment will take 60 votes. Obviously, on the Sessions-Domenici amendment, it is 60 votes. The Democrat amendment hasn't changed that much. The point of order wouldn't lie against ours, but on ours it would be subject to the same. I hope the bankruptcy bill will pass--either of them--because they do not belong on the bankruptcy bill. But, first, let me emphasize that President Bush has made it very clear--I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing--no moneys from the Medicare trust fund will be spent on anything other than Medicare. He said that. He has had various Members testify. There have been serious questions made of the Secretary of Health and Human Services about this trust fund concept that is being raised by Senator Kent Conrad's amendment. I asked him clearly: Did the President change his mind? Is there anything new? No. It is just what it was, and now he looked at hundreds of millions of Americans and said none of the Medicare trust fund money will be used for anything other than Medicare. As everybody knows, I don't have any intention of bringing a budget resolution to the floor that spends any Medicare money, or on anything other than Medicare. As a matter of fact, Medicare will be fully funded, as it is by the President of the United States. Having said that, we should be clear on one thing: The Conrad amendment is not about protecting Medicare. That amendment is about using scare tactics to prevent a tax cut. That always happens every time we have something significant where we say, let's give the American people back some of their money, or even better, let's not even collect it. Let's leave it with them, never bring it up here so we have to cut taxes; just let them keep it. Every time that happens, it becomes obvious the arguments against it wilt; they are not strong enough. So along comes the typical argument: The Republicans and the President must be doing something about Medicare, something to harm it, hurt it. The American people, in the last election, did not buy that argument because seniors, it seems like from at least what little we know, voted for George Bush in pretty large numbers. They did not believe the scare tactics that the Social Security trust fund was going to be harmed by the President's idea in relation to the individual accounts. They did not believe the idea that Medicare was going to be hurt. The same thing here. Senator Conrad has taken out the traditional tactic, and now he is making it an early issue with reference to the budget by trying to attach it here on a bankruptcy bill that is moving through the Senate, and because it is the third or fourth time we have considered it, it has to get passed. As I see it, things are certainly not going the way of those on the other side of the aisle. The President has proposed returning a small portion of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus to the American taxpayers, and the momentum is moving with the President. On the chart I have here, that is this small red amount that he has proposed we give back to the American people, or never collect from them. But some on the other side are happy to still be against this President's tax proposal. So out comes the Medicare card, and suddenly it becomes a question of tax cuts versus Medicare. But Senator Breaux, from the other side of the aisle, was correct when he said: Medicare must not be used as a wedge issue any longer. The question before this Congress is not whether to cut taxes or whether to save Medicare. That's not the choice we're facing. The choice is something different than that. And he continued: I support a tax cut, targeted, and I'm dedicated to saving Medicare. It's not an either/or proposition. Now, that is a true statement, whether or not you choose to have a targeted tax cut or the President's notion--and the notion I support-- of cutting everybody's income tax rate as described here on the chart. The Breaux statement is: I support a tax cut, targeted, and I'm dedicated to saving Medicare. It's not an either/or proposition. Frankly, the amendment I am talking about really attempts to make it an either/or proposition. I know for seniors, and for those who are worried about the seniors' futures, and making sure we take care of Medicare, this business of Part A and Part B is not nice to talk about, but the Part A part of Medicare is essentially the hospital care program of Medicare; it is the hospital care part. The assets of that trust fund are depleted in 2026. At that point, Part A of Medicare will start running an overall deficit. As we look at the entire Medicare program, instead of just Part A, what is the rest of it? The rest of it, Part B, are all the other services that many senior citizens get under the collar and title of Medicare. All of those programs are Part B, except essentially the hospital ones which are hospital bills and are Part A. So if we look at this program instead of just Part A, we see that Medicare is already running a deficit. Let's look at it. There is a $58 billion total Medicare deficit--$58 billion--in the year 2002. Very simple. It is shown right there on the graph. There will be a nearly $1 trillion Medicare deficit over the next 10 years. It is shown right there on the graph. So what do we need to do? Everybody knows what we have to do. We have to reform Medicare, not just shuffle money around. We have to reform it. But this amendment I am talking about, that I oppose, will make reforming Medicare more difficult. The amendment wants to take half the Medicare program off budget while leaving the other half on budget. How can we reform a program that is half on budget and half off budget when we need to reform the whole package? I want to point out, the amendment is not the same one that was offered last session by the same Senator. Under his current amendment, the Part A surplus cannot be reduced for any reason, even for additional Part A spending. At least last year, his similar amendment would allow Part A surpluses to be spent on Part A Medicare expenses. So while President Bush has promised that Medicare funds will be spent only on Medicare, the amendment I am opposing does not allow Medicare funds spent at all, even for Medicare. They are off budget. And I assume they are expecting us to use all of them to buy down debt. Now, maybe I am mistaken, but that is the way I read it. We believe, if we are reducing the deficit of the United States by $2 trillion, as the budget resolution and the President request, which is what we are doing--we are going to leave $1.2 trillion there for remaining debt--that you cannot reduce the debt any more. What are you going to do with this Medicare trust fund taking it off budget? Where are you going to invest it? It seems to me we have to invent a whole new way to permit it to be invested. Frankly, I do not know what that would be. And I do not think that helps. I do not think that helps save the Medicare program. I want to show my colleagues, on this graph, the red is income to the trust fund, the green is spending, and the blue is assets. Look at this. Look what has happened. The trust fund will be depleted by the year 2026. Spending will exceed income plus interest in 2018. And spending will exceed income in 2010. But if you were to adopt the Conrad amendment, ``spending exceeding income plus interest'' would not be changed one nickel. And the year 2026 event would not change at all. So what is the purpose of this? I believe it is to attempt to frustrate our ability to give back to the American people $1.6 trillion, which I have just alluded to and have shown you in the previous chart, which ought to be done. Tomorrow, we will have another opportunity to discuss this. I am not clamoring to adopt, unless the Senate really wants to, the Sessions- Domenici amendment, but it was actually passed by the House by an overwhelming margin. It permits you to reform Medicare. It permits you to do the proposal that we want to do with reference to prescription drugs. It permits that to occur. And if, in fact, the reform is within that Medicare fund, it is OK to be there. Under the Conrad amendment you could do neither of those things with this trust fund, which I do not think the Senate really wants to do. We will have a chance to refer to it further tomorrow. I point out that the amendment Senator Conrad has offered is not the same as the one he offered in the last session. Under his current amendment, the Part A surpluses cannot be reduced for any reason--even for additional Part A spending. At least last year, Senator Conrad would allow Part A surpluses to be spent on Part A Medicare expenses. So while President Bush has promised that Medicare funds will be spent only for Medicare, Senator Conrad doesn't want Medicare funds spent at all, even for Medicare. This amendment will also encourage more of the accounting gimmicks we have seen in the past. We are all aware that the current Part A surpluses were generated because we shifted home health services from Part A to Part B back in 1997. This change did nothing to improve the overall state of the Medicare program--it just made Part A look better. So let's not be lulled into a false state of complacency in thinking that playing political games with the Medicare trust fund will in any way protect Medicare. Only reform of the program can truly protect Medicare for future generations. Senator Conrad claims that his amendment is the fiscally responsible thing to do. But in fact, the fiscally responsible thing to do is to reform the entire Medicare program. Senator Conrad's amendment will set back the cause of reform by splitting Medicare permanently in two. If Senators truly care about Medicare reform and they believe, as I do, that the time has come to take serious action to save this program for the future, then they should not support Senator Conrad's amendment. Once again, I say to my friend, and ranking member, Senator Conrad, a point of order will be made tomorrow in a timely manner. Obviously, we will do that when somebody is around on the other side of the aisle so they can ask that it be waived and we can vote on it. There will be a 60-vote requirement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Saturday, March 10, 2001, marks a special day for the city of Las Cruces, NM. In a special ceremony, Las Cruces and Mr. Roberto Estrada will enter the Guinness Book of World Records. Roberto led the effort to make the world's largest three- layered, flat enchilada last October 8th during the annual Las Cruces Whole Enchilada Fiesta. This culinary triumph measured 33.89 feet in circumference, with a diameter of 10 feet, 5 inches. Roberto Estrada has worked toward this day for about 20 years, each year slowly increasing the size of the enchilada. He is a native of Mesilla, N.M., and a graduate of Las Cruces High School. A community- spirited chef, he began pressing corn tortillas at the age of 15. In 1968, Roberto bought an old tortilla factory and created the New Mexico Mexican Food. He expanded and opened a restaurant next door, appropriately named Roberto's. The Whole Enchilada Fiesta is a three-day celebration of southern New Mexico's traditions, people and great food. The community celebration centers around making a gigantic enchilada. Chef and founder of the fiesta, Estrada combines Southwest ingredients to make the crowd- pleasing enchilada. You must realize a lot goes into making this enchilada. The recipe calls for 975 pounds of ground corn, grated cheese and chopped onions, in addition to 250 gallons of red chile sauce and vegetable oil. Roberto designed the special equipment used to cook the enchilada, including the press, carrying plate, cooking vat and serving plate. A downtown street in Las Cruces is closed for creating and cooking the enchilada. To start, 250 pounds of ground corn dough, or masa, is placed on the press and carrying plate and pressed to make the tortilla. It is then cooked in a vat of 550-degree vegetable oil. Once cooked, the colossal corn tortilla is laid on the serving plate. Roberto then ladles chile sauce and spreads cheese and onions on the tortilla. This completes the first layer of the enchilada and the whole process is repeated two more times. More than a dozen volunteers help carry the ingredients and work the equipment. All these ingredients, equipment and labor come together to create what is now known as the ``Largest Red Enchilada.'' After approximately two and a half hours from start to finish, the zesty dish is completed and served to the spectators who gathered to watch this event. New Mexico is known for its diverse culture, great weather, and excellent food. Now there will be proof in the Guinness Book of World Records that the largest enchilada has been made by Roberto Estrada of Las Cruces, NM. In a state that cherishes it's chile, red or green, this is a Guinness honor that belongs in New Mexico. To pinpoint it even further, the Mesilla Valley in southern New Mexico is one of the more renowned chile growing regions in the country. And I salute Roberto for taking the initiative as part of the Whole Enchilada Fiesta to bring the world's attention to our love of good and spicy food. I extend an invitation to anyone interested in being a part of this great annual event in Las Cruces.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I joined with Senator Murkowski last week when he introduced the National Energy Strategy Act. His Bill addresses the broad range of issues that must underpin a credible approach to our nation's energy needs. It had key provisions for each major source of energy, including nuclear energy. I rise today to introduce the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001, which expands and builds on the National Energy Strategy in the specific area of nuclear energy. It provides a comprehensive framework for insuring that nuclear energy remains a strong option to meet our future needs. It accomplishes for nuclear energy what Senator Byrd's National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act does for clean coal technologies, which I also support. There is no single ``silver bullet'' that will address our nation's thirst for clean, reliable, reasonably priced, energy sources. That's why the National Energy Strategy Act carefully reinforced the importance of many energy options. Energy is far too important to our economic and military strength to rely on any small subset of the available options. Both nuclear energy and coal are now major producers of our electricity. In fact, between them they provide over 70 percent. In both cases, their continued use presents significant risks They illustrate a fundamental point, that absolutely every source of energy presents both benefits and risks. It's our responsibility to ensure that citizens are presented with accurate information on benefits and risks, information that is free from any political biases. And where risk areas are noted, it's our responsibility to devise programs that mitigate or avoid the risks. Senator Byrd's bill does this for coal technology, my bill does this for nuclear energy. Nuclear energy now provides about 22 percent of our electricity from 103 nuclear reactors. The operating costs of nuclear energy are among the lowest of any source. The Utility Data Institute recently reported production costs for nuclear at 1.83 cents per kw-hr, with coal at 2.08 cents per kw-hr. Through careful optimization of operating efficiencies, the output of nuclear plants has risen dramatically since the 1980's; nuclear plants operated with an amazing 87 percent capacity factor in 2000. Since 1990, with no new nuclear plants, the output of our plants has still increased by over 20 percent. That's equivalent to gaining the output of about 20 new nuclear plants without building any. Safety has been a vital focus, as evidenced by a constant decrease in the number of emergency shutdowns, or ``scrams,'' in our domestic plants. In 1985, there were 2.4 scrams per reactor, last year there were just 0.03. While some use the Three Mile Island accident to highlight their concerns the fact remains that our safety systems worked at Three Mile Island and no members of the public were harmed. Another example of the exemplary safety of nuclear reactors, when properly designed and managed, lies with our nuclear navy. They now operate about 90 nuclear powered ships, and over the years, they've operated about 250 reactors in all. In that time, they've accumulated 5,400 reactor-years of operation, over twice the number of reactor- years in our civilian sector. In all that time, they have never had a significant incident with their reactors. They are welcomed into over 150 major foreign ports in over 50 countries. Interest in our nuclear plants is increasing along with dramatically increased confidence in their ability to contribute to our energy needs. Interest in re-licensing plants, to extend their lifetime beyond the originally planned 40 years, has greatly expanded. The NRC has now approved re-licensing for 5 reactors, and over 30 other reactors have begun the renewal process. Industry experts now expect virtually all operating plants to apply for license extension. Nuclear energy is essentially emission free. We avoided the emission of 167 million tons of carbon last year or more than 2 billion tons since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary reporting program. The inescapable fact is that nuclear energy is making an immense contribution to the environmental health of our nation. But unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear energy, we're living on our past global leadership. Most of the technologies that drive the world's nuclear energy systems originated here. Much of our early leadership derived from our requirements for a nuclear navy; that work enabled many of the civilian aspects of nuclear power. Our reactor designs are found around the world. The reprocessing technology used in some countries originated here. The fuel designs in use around the world largely were developed here. This nation provided the global leadership to start the age of nuclear energy. Now, our leadership is seriously at risk. No nuclear plant has been ordered in the United States in over 20 years. To some extent, this was driven by decreases in energy demand following the early oil price shocks and from public fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But we also have allowed complex environmental reviews and regulatory stalemates to extend approval and construction times and to seriously undercut prospects for any additional plants. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the nuclear energy option until we are ready to specify with confidence how we are going to replace 22 percent of our electricity with some other source offering comparable safety, reliability, low cost, and environmental attributes. We risk our nation's future prosperity if we lose the nuclear option through inaction. Instead, we need concrete action to secure the nuclear option for future generations. We must not subject the nation to the risk of inadequate energy supplies. My bill is squarely aimed at avoiding this risk. I appreciate that my co-sponsors: Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Landrieu, Craig, Graham, Kyl, Crapo, Thompson, Voinovich and Hagel share these concerns and support this bill to address them. There are five broad aspects of this bill. First, it initiates programs to ensure that the operations of our current nuclear plants remain adequately supported. It authorizes expanded research and educational programs to ensure that we have a qualified workforce supporting nuclear issues. It sets up incentives for companies to increase the efficiency of existing plants. And it assures that the industries supporting our domestic nuclear fuel supplies remain viable. Second, it encourages construction of new plants, especially Generation IV plants. Technology to build these plants is close at hand. This bill not only supports research and development on these plants, it also supports development of the regulatory framework within the NRC that must be in place before they can be licensed. Generation IV plants would be cost competitive with natural gas, have significantly improved safety features with the goal of passive safety systems that would be immune to human errors, have reduced generation of spent fuel and nuclear waste, and have improved resistance to any possible proliferation. In the U.S., Exelon Corporation has invested in design of a plant in South Africa that has many of these attributes. Third, this bill has provisions to secure a level playing field for evaluation of nuclear energy relative to other energy sources. It seeks to avoid any scientifically inaccurate stigmas that have been placed on nuclear energy. Fourth, this bill seeks to create improved solutions for managing nuclear waste. Our current national policy simply requires that we find a permanent repository for spent fuel. But spent fuel has immense residual energy. Our present plan simply assumes that future generations will be so energy-rich that they would have no interest in this major energy source. I'm not at all sure that view serves our nation and those future generations very well. I've favored study of alternative strategies for spent fuel. As a minimum we should be doing research now to enable future generations to decide if spent fuel should still be treated as waste, or if it should be treated as a precious energy resource. Advanced technologies for recycling spent fuel and regaining some of its energy value would also allow us to consider approaches to render the final waste form far less toxic then spent fuel. These approaches require transmutation of the long-lived radioactive species into either short-lived or stable species. This bill includes funding for a research project, based on modern accelerators, to study the economics and engineering aspects of transmutation. There is substantial interest in other countries in joining us in collaborative study of this option. This accelerator project, almost as an added bonus, can also provide a backup source of the tritium required to maintain our nuclear stockpile. The bill provides for this application. The accelerator program, called Advanced Accelerator Applications or AAA, would also produce radioisotopes for medical purposes and would provide a great test bed for study of many nuclear engineering questions. Before leaving the part of the bill dealing with spent fuel, let me emphasize how very compact these wastes are already and how much more compact they could be. For example, all the spent fuel rods from the last 40 years of our nation's nuclear energy production would only fill one football field to a depth of around 4 yards. If we had encouraged reprocessing of spent fuel in this country, we would have dramatically less high level waste. In France, they reprocess spent fuel, both to reuse some of the residual energy and to extract some of the more inert components. Through their efforts, a container, smaller than two rolls of film, represents the final high level waste for a French family of four for twenty years. And finally, the fifth and last part of this bill provides streamlining for a number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission procedures and outdated statutory restrictions. For example, in a global energy market it makes sense to allow foreign ownership of power and research reactors located in the United States. At the same time, this amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act retains U.S. security precautions in the original law. Another amendment eliminates time-consuming and unnecessary antitrust review requirements. This section of the bill would also simplify the hearing requirements in a proceeding involving an amendment to an existing operating license or the transfer of an existing license. Further, another provision gives the NRC the authority to establish requirements to ensure that non-licensees fully comply with their obligations to fund nuclear plant decommissioning. These and other changes to the 1954 Act will assist the NRC in its pursuit of more effective and responsive regulation of our domestic nuclear plants. These changes to the Atomic Energy Act have the support of the leadership of the NRC Chairman. Mr. President, this bill enables nuclear energy to continue to be treated as a viable option for our nation's electricity needs. It would help ensure that future generations continue to enjoy clean, safe, reliable electricity and the many benefits that this energy source will provide. Mr. President, I am privileged to take a little bit of the Senate's time to talk about something I think is very important. I have been working on this for a long time, but it just wasn't opportune to bring it up and give serious consideration to this issue. With the energy crisis in the United States, people are going to be able to understand that we truly have a shortage in the capacity to produce electricity, which takes care of our homes, feeds our industry, and provides a substantial portion of America's economic prosperity and growth. So today I am going to talk about a bill I am introducing, with bipartisan support, which essentially tries to bring back to a level playing field for consideration nuclear energy and new nuclear powerplants. This bill I am introducing is on my behalf and also for Senators Lincoln, Graham, Thompson, Voinovich, Hagel, Murkowski, Landrieu, Craig, Kyl, and Crapo, I believe I will have another 10 to 12 cosponsors soon, all of whom see the importance of the United States of America making sure we are taking care of all energy, looking out for and moving in the direction of every energy source we have that is safe and at the right level of risk, and that we proceed to develop those for America's future. One of those that can't be left out, in my opinion, is the entire field of nuclear energy and what is needed to bring America back to a leading role in the world in terms of nuclear power and future generations of nuclear powerplants. As a precursor to a few remarks, I want to indicate to the Senate, and those interested, that every American ought to be concerned about the fact that America doesn't have enough energy being produced to keep ourselves going at our current rate, much less at the natural growth rate that everybody expects. My first little exhibit here is a very interesting evaluation and analysis of America's current sources of electricity at the end of 1999. (We don't have a more current one, but it hasn't changed much.) Everybody should know that in the United States coal-burning powerplants produce 51.4 percent of our electricity. Somehow or another, even though coal provides 51 percent, we aren't building very many coal powerplants because we have not moved fast enough with new technology, and there are many who don't want to build any more coal- burning plants, even if we can get their pollution down to a safe and nonrisky rate. Then if we look at the next big source of electricity, it is nuclear energy, 19.8 percent. Might I say that while this power crisis has come about, the nuclear powerplants in the United States have been producing at a higher rate. They have produced far more electricity without adding any new plants because the regulatory schemes have become reasonable instead of unreasonable and generating capacity has risen. Capacity used to be 70 percent; it is now up to 90. Incidentally, if we had time, we would show you that even during that period of time, the safety record has become better rather than worse. We have a very interesting chart that would show that. Let's move on. Natural gas, which we are now rapidly building, everywhere I turn and look, people are building a new powerplant with natural gas. A little bit of electricity comes from oil, 3.1 percent. And then hydroelectricity is 8.3 percent. Others sources are in yellow on the chart--and I am telling it like it is. That yellow represents 2.3 percent, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. Of that yellow, I believe solar and wind are about a half a percent of the 2.3 percent. So there are those who say we can solve our energy problem with those items that are in yellow here. I say, good luck. Let's proceed as rapidly as we can. But I have a hunch that to increase those latter sources to a larger ratio within our energy sources, we will have a long way to go. We would have to produce these wind fields with windmills on them beyond anything Americans expect. They expect this should not be the case if we have another way. Understand that hydroelectricity is a small amount, but it is pretty important. Even in the last administration, they were talking about knocking down some dams so we would have less of this. Actually, that is pretty risky for America's future. For those who are wondering where we are in terms of cost, I want to show them something. This is the electricity production costs. My good friend occupying the Chair is from Oklahoma. He produces gas and oil in his State. The best we could do is get information for the end of 1999. The distinguished Senator and those in attendance know that the natural gas price has gone up substantially since 1999. I could not bring more recent cost data because we do not have anything more current. Since the only thing we want to use is natural gas, we have put an enormous demand on natural gas while those who supply it are struggling to keep pace. So the price of natural gas has gone up in a rather extraordinary manner. I think everybody in this Senate would agree with that. That is because the market is taking hold of a very small portion that is free to be traded and those who own it are saying: What will you pay for it? That is going up, but even in 1999, here is what it cost Americans. The green line is nuclear power. We see that it is the lowest. In 1999, it is beginning to get even lower than coal-burning powerplants. This next line is oil. One can see it is below natural gas. These are the numbers: Nuclear, 1.83; coal, 2.07; oil, 3.18; and gas, 3.52 cents per kilowatt-hour. Of course, just because energy is more expensive, it does not mean we should not use it, but I believe the American people over the next 10 to 25 years ought to have a mix so there is a market balance and there is some competition for these various sources of energy. I believe that is why so many Senators have joined in this bill. I want to quickly tell you what it does. It supports nuclear energy, and it does that in many ways. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, called NERI, which is being funded--we are going to authorize it to make sure it continues. Nuclear energy plant optimization is a few million dollars. This helps certification of these plants for an extended licensure period. Incidentally, that is happening. We are relicensing them. Those who are doing that are sure they are safe. I wish I had time. I would show you relicensing versus closing them down, which some people would like. This will add an enormous amount of energy over the next 20 to 30 years. I have a chart showing that, but I will not use your time on that. We also have nuclear energy education support. America used to be not only the leading producer of nuclear power, but we were the leader in all of the science and technology. We moved from the atom bomb to peaceful uses. The great scientists converted it and made nuclear powerplants. These plants are getting more and more modern in the world, yet America is letting our technology and our science sit still. We want to move that ahead in our universities where more people who want to choose engineering and science are given an opportunity to get into the nuclear field because it is important to America's future. We encourage new plant construction. That will not come overnight, but it is interesting that while the United States debates an issue of what we do with the waste that comes out of the nuclear powerplants-- and I am sure the occupant of the chair and most Senators if they study it carefully will clearly come down on the side that this is not a difficult problem--people who do not want nuclear power at all make it a problem. But technically, scientifically, and safetywise, it is not a problem. It is now a problem because the State of Nevada does not want it, so they are using every political means. That is their prerogative. But somehow, somewhere, America will be moving in the direction of getting that problem solved. We are working on a long-term solution. Incidentally, in this bill we suggest and create waste solutions. We create an Office for Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Department. If you have a Department of Energy for the greatest nation on Earth, you surely ought to have within it, on its domestic side of achievements and activities, an office for research on spent nuclear fuel. Which great country would not have that except us? But we went through 15 years when we threw almost everything nuclear out of the Department of Energy, as if it were not an energy source, as if it would go away. The spirit and energy of coming back and doing something significant is prompted because the world in the future wants to be free and wants to have production of wealth. People want to be part of a world in which the poor countries should get richer over the next 10, 20, 30 years, not poorer, and America wants to be part of that. We all have to worry about energy supplies. In South Africa, they are moving ahead with the next generation of a nuclear powerplant that is going to be completely different from the powerplants we have today. We are sending a few people there to help with licensure and regulation, but America should be leading the way. We should be there with the scientists, engineers, and American companies moving to the next generation. There is a next generation. It is not cooled necessarily by water. There are other ways to cool it. Incidentally, it will have passive safety features so it cannot melt down. That is the one issue everybody puts up when they say do not touch nuclear power because they want to scare us to death--it might have a meltdown. But this new powerplant cannot do that, as a matter of fundamental design parameters. In this bill, we are going to create waste solutions. We are looking at an advanced accelerator, called AAA. We are also looking at advanced fuel recycling. Ultimately we may have a whole new way to change the quality of high-level waste through a process called transmutation. The end product will mostly no longer be high-level waste; they will be able to dispose of the products from transmutation in a very easy way. I was talking about waste. I was going to show the Senate a container we received as a demonstration. This holds the waste from a family of four in France for 20 years--a family of four, year round for 20 years. That is the total waste they generate because they have 80 percent nuclear power. But here we are making nuclear waste the most enormous problem in the world, and letting it stop our pursuit of the cleanest, most environmentally friendly source of energy around. If we are looking at balancing environmental needs with energy, nothing beats nuclear. We also encourage new plant construction in this bill. That means evaluation of options to complete some unfinished powerplants and Generation Four Reactors. These are the next generation. We are funding them to try to catch up. We are also going to assure a level playing field for nuclear power. By that I mean it has not been entitled to some of the luxuries of credits in terms of clean air and the like that other forms of energy have. That is going to change. Last, we are going to improve the NRC regulations. I close by saying the United States has 103 nuclear powerplants producing 20 percent of our energy. Let me state how safe nuclear power is. First, we have about 90 ships at sea that have as part of their structure one or two nuclear powerplants. I want to make sure those who are interested know about these ships sailing the seas with nuclear powerplants. I am talking about nuclear powerplants that are just like the nuclear powerplants that exist in America on this chart. They might be smaller, but they are the same and produce the same kind of power. In 1954, we put the first one in the ocean. Today, we have them sailing everywhere with that reactor and nuclear fuel on board. Yet they are permitted to dock all around the world except New Zealand. Does anybody believe they could dock all over the world if they were unsafe? There would be an outcry to put them 80 miles out, but they are right in the docks. They are welcome because they are absolutely safe. There has never been a nuclear accident since 1954 in the entire nuclear Navy history. In the end, one of the issues will be what risks we take. Overall, we take fewer risks by using nuclear power than by almost any other source because we produce dramatic environmental consequences on the plus side with nuclear power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, with this agreement, what is the time arrangement after he finishes?

Mr. DOMENICI. I had only 10 minutes in any event, did I not?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to object at this point, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes when my time comes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I joined with Senator Murkowski last week when he introduced the National Energy Strategy Act. His Bill addresses the broad range of issues that must underpin a credible approach to our nation's energy needs. It had key provisions for each major source of energy, including nuclear energy. I rise today to introduce the Nuclear Energy Electricity Assurance Act of 2001, which expands and builds on the National Energy Strategy in the specific area of nuclear energy. It provides a comprehensive framework for insuring that nuclear energy remains a strong option to meet our future needs. It accomplishes for nuclear energy what Senator Byrd's National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act does for clean coal technologies, which I also support. There is no single ``silver bullet'' that will address our nation's thirst for clean, reliable, reasonably priced, energy sources. That's why the National Energy Strategy Act carefully reinforced the importance of many energy options. Energy is far too important to our economic and military strength to rely on any small subset of the available options. Both nuclear energy and coal are now major producers of our electricity. In fact, between them they provide over 70 percent. In both cases, their continued use presents significant risks They illustrate a fundamental point, that absolutely every source of energy presents both benefits and risks. It's our responsibility to ensure that citizens are presented with accurate information on benefits and risks, information that is free from any political biases. And where risk areas are noted, it's our responsibility to devise programs that mitigate or avoid the risks. Senator Byrd's bill does this for coal technology, my bill does this for nuclear energy. Nuclear energy now provides about 22 percent of our electricity from 103 nuclear reactors. The operating costs of nuclear energy are among the lowest of any source. The Utility Data Institute recently reported production costs for nuclear at 1.83 cents per kw-hr, with coal at 2.08 cents per kw-hr. Through careful optimization of operating efficiencies, the output of nuclear plants has risen dramatically since the 1980's; nuclear plants operated with an amazing 87 percent capacity factor in 2000. Since 1990, with no new nuclear plants, the output of our plants has still increased by over 20 percent. That's equivalent to gaining the output of about 20 new nuclear plants without building any. Safety has been a vital focus, as evidenced by a constant decrease in the number of emergency shutdowns, or ``scrams,'' in our domestic plants. In 1985, there were 2.4 scrams per reactor, last year there were just 0.03. While some use the Three Mile Island accident to highlight their concerns the fact remains that our safety systems worked at Three Mile Island and no members of the public were harmed. Another example of the exemplary safety of nuclear reactors, when properly designed and managed, lies with our nuclear navy. They now operate about 90 nuclear powered ships, and over the years, they've operated about 250 reactors in all. In that time, they've accumulated 5,400 reactor-years of operation, over twice the number of reactor- years in our civilian sector. In all that time, they have never had a significant incident with their reactors. They are welcomed into over 150 major foreign ports in over 50 countries. Interest in our nuclear plants is increasing along with dramatically increased confidence in their ability to contribute to our energy needs. Interest in re-licensing plants, to extend their lifetime beyond the originally planned 40 years, has greatly expanded. The NRC has now approved re-licensing for 5 reactors, and over 30 other reactors have begun the renewal process. Industry experts now expect virtually all operating plants to apply for license extension. Nuclear energy is essentially emission free. We avoided the emission of 167 million tons of carbon last year or more than 2 billion tons since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary reporting program. The inescapable fact is that nuclear energy is making an immense contribution to the environmental health of our nation. But unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear energy, we're living on our past global leadership. Most of the technologies that drive the world's nuclear energy systems originated here. Much of our early leadership derived from our requirements for a nuclear navy; that work enabled many of the civilian aspects of nuclear power. Our reactor designs are found around the world. The reprocessing technology used in some countries originated here. The fuel designs in use around the world largely were developed here. This nation provided the global leadership to start the age of nuclear energy. Now, our leadership is seriously at risk. No nuclear plant has been ordered in the United States in over 20 years. To some extent, this was driven by decreases in energy demand following the early oil price shocks and from public fears about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But we also have allowed complex environmental reviews and regulatory stalemates to extend approval and construction times and to seriously undercut prospects for any additional plants. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the nuclear energy option until we are ready to specify with confidence how we are going to replace 22 percent of our electricity with some other source offering comparable safety, reliability, low cost, and environmental attributes. We risk our nation's future prosperity if we lose the nuclear option through inaction. Instead, we need concrete action to secure the nuclear option for future generations. We must not subject the nation to the risk of inadequate energy supplies. My bill is squarely aimed at avoiding this risk. I appreciate that my co-sponsors: Senators Lincoln, Murkowski, Landrieu, Craig, Graham, Kyl, Crapo, Thompson, Voinovich and Hagel share these concerns and support this bill to address them. There are five broad aspects of this bill. First, it initiates programs to ensure that the operations of our current nuclear plants remain adequately supported. It authorizes expanded research and educational programs to ensure that we have a qualified workforce supporting nuclear issues. It sets up incentives for companies to increase the efficiency of existing plants. And it assures that the industries supporting our domestic nuclear fuel supplies remain viable. Second, it encourages construction of new plants, especially Generation IV plants. Technology to build these plants is close at hand. This bill not only supports research and development on these plants, it also supports development of the regulatory framework within the NRC that must be in place before they can be licensed. Generation IV plants would be cost competitive with natural gas, have significantly improved safety features with the goal of passive safety systems that would be immune to human errors, have reduced generation of spent fuel and nuclear waste, and have improved resistance to any possible proliferation. In the U.S., Exelon Corporation has invested in design of a plant in South Africa that has many of these attributes. Third, this bill has provisions to secure a level playing field for evaluation of nuclear energy relative to other energy sources. It seeks to avoid any scientifically inaccurate stigmas that have been placed on nuclear energy. Fourth, this bill seeks to create improved solutions for managing nuclear waste. Our current national policy simply requires that we find a permanent repository for spent fuel. But spent fuel has immense residual energy. Our present plan simply assumes that future generations will be so energy-rich that they would have no interest in this major energy source. I'm not at all sure that view serves our nation and those future generations very well. I've favored study of alternative strategies for spent fuel. As a minimum we should be doing research now to enable future generations to decide if spent fuel should still be treated as waste, or if it should be treated as a precious energy resource. Advanced technologies for recycling spent fuel and regaining some of its energy value would also allow us to consider approaches to render the final waste form far less toxic then spent fuel. These approaches require transmutation of the long-lived radioactive species into either short-lived or stable species. This bill includes funding for a research project, based on modern accelerators, to study the economics and engineering aspects of transmutation. There is substantial interest in other countries in joining us in collaborative study of this option. This accelerator project, almost as an added bonus, can also provide a backup source of the tritium required to maintain our nuclear stockpile. The bill provides for this application. The accelerator program, called Advanced Accelerator Applications or AAA, would also produce radioisotopes for medical purposes and would provide a great test bed for study of many nuclear engineering questions. Before leaving the part of the bill dealing with spent fuel, let me emphasize how very compact these wastes are already and how much more compact they could be. For example, all the spent fuel rods from the last 40 years of our nation's nuclear energy production would only fill one football field to a depth of around 4 yards. If we had encouraged reprocessing of spent fuel in this country, we would have dramatically less high level waste. In France, they reprocess spent fuel, both to reuse some of the residual energy and to extract some of the more inert components. Through their efforts, a container, smaller than two rolls of film, represents the final high level waste for a French family of four for twenty years. And finally, the fifth and last part of this bill provides streamlining for a number of Nuclear Regulatory Commission procedures and outdated statutory restrictions. For example, in a global energy market it makes sense to allow foreign ownership of power and research reactors located in the United States. At the same time, this amendment to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act retains U.S. security precautions in the original law. Another amendment eliminates time-consuming and unnecessary antitrust review requirements. This section of the bill would also simplify the hearing requirements in a proceeding involving an amendment to an existing operating license or the transfer of an existing license. Further, another provision gives the NRC the authority to establish requirements to ensure that non-licensees fully comply with their obligations to fund nuclear plant decommissioning. These and other changes to the 1954 Act will assist the NRC in its pursuit of more effective and responsive regulation of our domestic nuclear plants. These changes to the Atomic Energy Act have the support of the leadership of the NRC Chairman. Mr. President, this bill enables nuclear energy to continue to be treated as a viable option for our nation's electricity needs. It would help ensure that future generations continue to enjoy clean, safe, reliable electricity and the many benefits that this energy source will provide. Mr. President, I am privileged to take a little bit of the Senate's time to talk about something I think is very important. I have been working on this for a long time, but it just wasn't opportune to bring it up and give serious consideration to this issue. With the energy crisis in the United States, people are going to be able to understand that we truly have a shortage in the capacity to produce electricity, which takes care of our homes, feeds our industry, and provides a substantial portion of America's economic prosperity and growth. So today I am going to talk about a bill I am introducing, with bipartisan support, which essentially tries to bring back to a level playing field for consideration nuclear energy and new nuclear powerplants. This bill I am introducing is on my behalf and also for Senators Lincoln, Graham, Thompson, Voinovich, Hagel, Murkowski, Landrieu, Craig, Kyl, and Crapo, I believe I will have another 10 to 12 cosponsors soon, all of whom see the importance of the United States of America making sure we are taking care of all energy, looking out for and moving in the direction of every energy source we have that is safe and at the right level of risk, and that we proceed to develop those for America's future. One of those that can't be left out, in my opinion, is the entire field of nuclear energy and what is needed to bring America back to a leading role in the world in terms of nuclear power and future generations of nuclear powerplants. As a precursor to a few remarks, I want to indicate to the Senate, and those interested, that every American ought to be concerned about the fact that America doesn't have enough energy being produced to keep ourselves going at our current rate, much less at the natural growth rate that everybody expects. My first little exhibit here is a very interesting evaluation and analysis of America's current sources of electricity at the end of 1999. (We don't have a more current one, but it hasn't changed much.) Everybody should know that in the United States coal-burning powerplants produce 51.4 percent of our electricity. Somehow or another, even though coal provides 51 percent, we aren't building very many coal powerplants because we have not moved fast enough with new technology, and there are many who don't want to build any more coal- burning plants, even if we can get their pollution down to a safe and nonrisky rate. Then if we look at the next big source of electricity, it is nuclear energy, 19.8 percent. Might I say that while this power crisis has come about, the nuclear powerplants in the United States have been producing at a higher rate. They have produced far more electricity without adding any new plants because the regulatory schemes have become reasonable instead of unreasonable and generating capacity has risen. Capacity used to be 70 percent; it is now up to 90. Incidentally, if we had time, we would show you that even during that period of time, the safety record has become better rather than worse. We have a very interesting chart that would show that. Let's move on. Natural gas, which we are now rapidly building, everywhere I turn and look, people are building a new powerplant with natural gas. A little bit of electricity comes from oil, 3.1 percent. And then hydroelectricity is 8.3 percent. Others sources are in yellow on the chart--and I am telling it like it is. That yellow represents 2.3 percent, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and others. Of that yellow, I believe solar and wind are about a half a percent of the 2.3 percent. So there are those who say we can solve our energy problem with those items that are in yellow here. I say, good luck. Let's proceed as rapidly as we can. But I have a hunch that to increase those latter sources to a larger ratio within our energy sources, we will have a long way to go. We would have to produce these wind fields with windmills on them beyond anything Americans expect. They expect this should not be the case if we have another way. Understand that hydroelectricity is a small amount, but it is pretty important. Even in the last administration, they were talking about knocking down some dams so we would have less of this. Actually, that is pretty risky for America's future. For those who are wondering where we are in terms of cost, I want to show them something. This is the electricity production costs. My good friend occupying the Chair is from Oklahoma. He produces gas and oil in his State. The best we could do is get information for the end of 1999. The distinguished Senator and those in attendance know that the natural gas price has gone up substantially since 1999. I could not bring more recent cost data because we do not have anything more current. Since the only thing we want to use is natural gas, we have put an enormous demand on natural gas while those who supply it are struggling to keep pace. So the price of natural gas has gone up in a rather extraordinary manner. I think everybody in this Senate would agree with that. That is because the market is taking hold of a very small portion that is free to be traded and those who own it are saying: What will you pay for it? That is going up, but even in 1999, here is what it cost Americans. The green line is nuclear power. We see that it is the lowest. In 1999, it is beginning to get even lower than coal-burning powerplants. This next line is oil. One can see it is below natural gas. These are the numbers: Nuclear, 1.83; coal, 2.07; oil, 3.18; and gas, 3.52 cents per kilowatt-hour. Of course, just because energy is more expensive, it does not mean we should not use it, but I believe the American people over the next 10 to 25 years ought to have a mix so there is a market balance and there is some competition for these various sources of energy. I believe that is why so many Senators have joined in this bill. I want to quickly tell you what it does. It supports nuclear energy, and it does that in many ways. The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, called NERI, which is being funded--we are going to authorize it to make sure it continues. Nuclear energy plant optimization is a few million dollars. This helps certification of these plants for an extended licensure period. Incidentally, that is happening. We are relicensing them. Those who are doing that are sure they are safe. I wish I had time. I would show you relicensing versus closing them down, which some people would like. This will add an enormous amount of energy over the next 20 to 30 years. I have a chart showing that, but I will not use your time on that. We also have nuclear energy education support. America used to be not only the leading producer of nuclear power, but we were the leader in all of the science and technology. We moved from the atom bomb to peaceful uses. The great scientists converted it and made nuclear powerplants. These plants are getting more and more modern in the world, yet America is letting our technology and our science sit still. We want to move that ahead in our universities where more people who want to choose engineering and science are given an opportunity to get into the nuclear field because it is important to America's future. We encourage new plant construction. That will not come overnight, but it is interesting that while the United States debates an issue of what we do with the waste that comes out of the nuclear powerplants-- and I am sure the occupant of the chair and most Senators if they study it carefully will clearly come down on the side that this is not a difficult problem--people who do not want nuclear power at all make it a problem. But technically, scientifically, and safetywise, it is not a problem. It is now a problem because the State of Nevada does not want it, so they are using every political means. That is their prerogative. But somehow, somewhere, America will be moving in the direction of getting that problem solved. We are working on a long-term solution. Incidentally, in this bill we suggest and create waste solutions. We create an Office for Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Department. If you have a Department of Energy for the greatest nation on Earth, you surely ought to have within it, on its domestic side of achievements and activities, an office for research on spent nuclear fuel. Which great country would not have that except us? But we went through 15 years when we threw almost everything nuclear out of the Department of Energy, as if it were not an energy source, as if it would go away. The spirit and energy of coming back and doing something significant is prompted because the world in the future wants to be free and wants to have production of wealth. People want to be part of a world in which the poor countries should get richer over the next 10, 20, 30 years, not poorer, and America wants to be part of that. We all have to worry about energy supplies. In South Africa, they are moving ahead with the next generation of a nuclear powerplant that is going to be completely different from the powerplants we have today. We are sending a few people there to help with licensure and regulation, but America should be leading the way. We should be there with the scientists, engineers, and American companies moving to the next generation. There is a next generation. It is not cooled necessarily by water. There are other ways to cool it. Incidentally, it will have passive safety features so it cannot melt down. That is the one issue everybody puts up when they say do not touch nuclear power because they want to scare us to death--it might have a meltdown. But this new powerplant cannot do that, as a matter of fundamental design parameters. In this bill, we are going to create waste solutions. We are looking at an advanced accelerator, called AAA. We are also looking at advanced fuel recycling. Ultimately we may have a whole new way to change the quality of high-level waste through a process called transmutation. The end product will mostly no longer be high-level waste; they will be able to dispose of the products from transmutation in a very easy way. I was talking about waste. I was going to show the Senate a container we received as a demonstration. This holds the waste from a family of four in France for 20 years--a family of four, year round for 20 years. That is the total waste they generate because they have 80 percent nuclear power. But here we are making nuclear waste the most enormous problem in the world, and letting it stop our pursuit of the cleanest, most environmentally friendly source of energy around. If we are looking at balancing environmental needs with energy, nothing beats nuclear. We also encourage new plant construction in this bill. That means evaluation of options to complete some unfinished powerplants and Generation Four Reactors. These are the next generation. We are funding them to try to catch up. We are also going to assure a level playing field for nuclear power. By that I mean it has not been entitled to some of the luxuries of credits in terms of clean air and the like that other forms of energy have. That is going to change. Last, we are going to improve the NRC regulations. I close by saying the United States has 103 nuclear powerplants producing 20 percent of our energy. Let me state how safe nuclear power is. First, we have about 90 ships at sea that have as part of their structure one or two nuclear powerplants. I want to make sure those who are interested know about these ships sailing the seas with nuclear powerplants. I am talking about nuclear powerplants that are just like the nuclear powerplants that exist in America on this chart. They might be smaller, but they are the same and produce the same kind of power. In 1954, we put the first one in the ocean. Today, we have them sailing everywhere with that reactor and nuclear fuel on board. Yet they are permitted to dock all around the world except New Zealand. Does anybody believe they could dock all over the world if they were unsafe? There would be an outcry to put them 80 miles out, but they are right in the docks. They are welcome because they are absolutely safe. There has never been a nuclear accident since 1954 in the entire nuclear Navy history. In the end, one of the issues will be what risks we take. Overall, we take fewer risks by using nuclear power than by almost any other source because we produce dramatic environmental consequences on the plus side with nuclear power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was not part of that discussion. I have not used a lot of time. I have some strong feelings on this subject, but clearly I have not been here on the floor because there has been a great debating team on both sides. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that an editorial of November 21, 2000--that was a Tuesday--in the largest paper in New Mexico, the Albuquerque Journal, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Continuing from the editorial: The U.S. Department of Labor, which still subscribes to an antique notion of a proletariat oppressed by capitalists, seems eminently capable of disregarding the present reality even as it acknowledges it. . . . [OSHA] says companies in the United States and abroad have developed policies on ergonomics . . . But companies figuring out what works best in their particular operation is not good enough for OSHA, which is preparing to throw a one-size-fits-all regulatory blanket over workplaces from sea to shining sea. That is the relevant part of their editorial. It had some more in it that is in the Record. I suggest, in addition to what I have just described about the regulation, it is very expensive. We seem to pass these kinds of rules and regulations thinking there is no end to what the American economy can pay, whether it is $4 billion or $200 billion or $500 billion or $100 billion. The American economy will just hum along and continue paying. Frankly, I think we will see tonight that those who represent the people, in particular, small businesses, are going to say that is not true. Enough is enough. I hope we use this new law tonight and then I hope the Department of Labor and those interested in ergonomics regulations will proceed with due caution to adopt a more fair and better set of regulations that will protect everybody, not just those who want to make onerous regulations.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator from the State of Iowa has it all wrong when he cites this as one of the reasons the American people are discouraged with what we do here--that if they watch this process, they will be discouraged. Quite to the contrary, if the American people knew what was going on in this set of regulations 600 pages long, issued just before the President walked out of the White House, dramatically affecting thousands upon thousands of small businessmen, who do not have the wherewithal to even look at these 600 pages' worth of regulations, they would ask: What was going on in the White House that just left? They had hearings, they had proposed regulations, and all of a sudden they drew up a new set as they walked out the door that has a dramatic impact on every single small business in my State, hundreds and hundreds of them, perhaps a few hundred million dollars' worth of impact on them. And they had no hearings in Congress, no statutory proposal to change the law that is changed by these regulations. And all of a sudden, they wake up and they are supposed to be subject to these regulations through OSHA, a department of our Federal Government that at least in the last 8 years has been seen by most small businesspeople in the United States as against their interests without doing any good for the public. That is how they see OSHA most of the time. So having said that, I want to say that what we are doing now, under this very interesting statute--that got passed up here because I do not think those on the other side of the aisle thought we would ever be to a point where we would use it and have a President in the White House who would sign the resolution we adopted--I think they thought it is just a giveaway, just a throwaway; that is, this legislation providing for review in Congress, and the submission to the President, of a rule that would set aside the regulations. I think it is a reality check. I think it is saying to OSHA, and the former President, and the Department of Labor: Take some more time. We want the job done right. We do not want it one-sided. We want it fair. Frankly, in the typical bureaucratic fashion that so much besets OSHA, they issued this rule on November 14--600 pages long, weighing more than 2 pounds. That is not a very typical document that small businesspeople have the opportunity, the time, or the resources to evaluate. But you can count on it, they will be in some major class action lawsuits, or who knows what else the trial lawyers will find as a nest egg within the 600 pages of this regulation. Having said that, I will read a few paragraphs from an editorial in the Albuquerque Journal. It is considered a fair newspaper and this is what they said in their editorial: Employers are sweeping the corners for workers in a tight labor market and striving to increase productivity levels that already are the envy of the world. Does this sound like the sort of business climate in which employers would ignore ergonomic problems that sap productivity or create hard-to- fill vacancies? A very good question in this editorial.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join the community of Santa Clara Pueblo, New Mexico in mourning the loss of Maria Margarita ``Margaret'' Tafoya. New Mexico is comprised of imaginative people of many cultures who express their cultural values artistically and creatively. The people of New Mexico will miss the guidance of the ``matriarch of Santa Clara potters.'' Respected and renowned throughout the pottery community, Margaret inspired others to take up pottery. She crafted many pots and other forms in the tradition of Santa Clara polished blackware and redware. Her art is the fine workmanship of highly skilled hands. For her quality work, Margaret received numerous awards. The National Academy of Western Art at the Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center in Oklahoma City awarded her the Lifetime Contribution Award. She was the only American Indian to receive this award. In 1984, the National Endowment for the Arts awarded her the National Heritage Fellowship Award. In addition, her works have been displayed on the Mall in Washington, D.C. at the Folklife Festival sponsored by the Smithsonian Institute. However, Margaret did not work for recognition, she worked to improve the quality of life for her family and children. Her loss leaves a void for her family and the art community. Mr. President, I share the grief of the community of Santa Clara Pueblo and my heartfelt condolences go out to her family. I ask that an article in today's New York Times be printed in the Record. The article follows. Margaret Tafoya, Pueblo Potter Whose Work Found a Global Audience, Dies at 96 (By Douglas Martin) Margaret Tafoya, whose nimble, ingenious hands turned the chocolate-colored clay of her New Mexico pueblo into black- on-black and red-on-red pottery of such profound and graceful beauty that it acquired a global reputation, died on Feb. 25 at her home in Santa Clara Pueblo near Santa Fe. She was 96. Her name in Tewa, the language of seven Southwestern pueblos, six in New Mexico and one in Arizona, was Corn blossom. She was the matriarch of Santa Clara Pueblo potters, who are more numerous and produce more pottery than those of any other pueblo. Her work, know for exceptionally large vessels, is exhibited in public and private collections around the world. She was named folk artist of the year by the National Endowment for the Arts in 1984. The art form she practiced has long been dominated by women, and Corn Blossom was the last of a group of women who attained fame through their mastery of it. Gone are Blue Corn and Maria Martinez of the San Ildefonso Pueblo, Christina Naranjo of Santa Clara and Grace Chapella, a Hopi. Today Indian arts command astronomic prices and space on museum shelves in faraway cities, but fewer and fewer Pueblo Indians can speak or ever understand Tewa. Mrs. Tafoya, though, was rooted in the old ways. She spurned inventions like the potters' wheel. She kept chickens, milked her own cows, churned her own butter and rejected natural gas heat in favor of the traditional beehive fireplace. After a brief fling with an Apache, she married a young man from the home pueblo, a distant relative with the same last name. According to the Web site of the National Museum of American History (www.americanhistory.si.edu), Santa Clarans use the same word for clay and for people: nung. Mrs. Tafoya always prayed to Mother Clay before working. ``You can't go to Mother Clay without the cornmeal and ask her permission to touch her,'' the museum Web site quotes Mrs. Tafoya as saying. ``Talk to Mother Clay.'' Though she was one of the last to make pots with handles and criticized others for adding semiprecious gems to pottery, she also liked to experiment. She used different colors of slips, or thinned clays applied to the outside of her vessels, and her later forms were thinner, lighter and more graceful. Her shiny finishes became ever more polished. She even adapted Greek and Roman forms to classic Santa Clara shapes. Mrs. Tafoya clearly loved her art, but it was also how she supported her 10 children who survived their first year; 2 others did not. As she said, ``I have dressed my children with clay.'' Maria Margarita Tafoya was born in her pueblo on Aug. 13, 1904. Her mother, Sara Fina Gutierrez Tafoya, or Autumn Leaf, was ``undoubtedly the outstanding Tewa potter of her time,'' Mary Ellen and Laurence Blair wrote in ``Margaret Tafoya: A Tewa Potter's Heritage and Legacy'' (Schiffer, 1986). Her father, Geronimo, or White Flower, was mainly concerned with raising food for the family, but he was also the main marketer of his wife's pottery. He would load up his burros and make sales trips of up to 500 miles. Five of the couple's eight children became excellent potters, driven and inspired by their perfectionist mother. Margaret's rigidly traditional approach was suggested by her insistence on using corn cobs, rather than sandpaper, for polishing.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate scientists working with the Very Large Array, VLA, astronomical radio observatory near Socorro, New Mexico on detecting energy from a brown dwarf star. For over twenty years, the VLA has provided significant scientific knowledge to astronomers. Working on a student project, scientists, graduate, and undergraduate students discovered the first sustained radio emission from a brown dwarf star, an object similar to a small star without enough mass to sustain nuclear fusion of hydrogen. Discovered only 5 years ago, brown dwarf stars were considered unable to emit persistent radio emissions. This finding helps astronomers study the link between large, gaseous planets and small stars. I am proud to support the VLA and the contributions being made to our understanding of the cosmos. I also applaud the work and efforts of the scientists and students involved in making this noteworthy discovery. I ask that the February 21, 2001, New York Times article entitled, ``Surprise in the Heavens as Energy Is Detected in a Brown Dwarf'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From The New York Times Wed., Feb. 21, 2001] Surprise in the Heavens as Energy Is Detected in a Brown Dwarf (By James Glanz) A dim, fading object wandering alone through space, something between a large planet and a tiny star, turns out to be roiled by storms several times more powerful than the most energetic flares on the Sun, a team of radio astronomers has found. The existence of such powerful, stormy radio emissions in this kind of celestial object, a brown dwarf, is highly unexpected and could shed light on the dividing line between stars and planets. The research had been considered so unpromising that the discovery was made not as part of any large-scale astronomical search but an accidental find in a student project at the Very Large Array a set of raido-telescopes at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory near Socorro, NM. The students happened to have the array trained on the brown dwarf when it flared. Two senior radio astronomers, Dr. Dale A. Frail of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and Dr. Shrinivas Kulkarni of the California Institute of Technology, then became involved in follow-up observations, which were led by Edo Berger, a graduate student at Caltech. The follow-up observations showed that the object's magnetic fields were extremely weak, another surprise, since flares are normally powered by the energy in magnetic fields. A paper on the study has been accepted at the journal Nature and was posted Monday and a Web site at the Los Alamos National Laboratory where most astronomers place their new work. The existence of brown dwarfs, which are cool, dim and difficult to observe, was confirmed only five years ago by a team led by Dr. Kulkarni. Thought to have masses less than 8 percent that of the Sun, their cores never become hot enough to ignite the fusion process that allows ordinary stars to shine for billions of years. Instead, brown dwarfs gradually cool and fade after they form. Because brown dwarfs have an identity somewhere between that of large, gaseous planets like Jupiter and that of the smallest ordinary stars, astronomers said the new discovery should illuminate the structure of a crucial link between the two better-known classes of astronomical objects. Dr. Adam Burrows, an astrophysicist at the University of Arizona, said energetic particles and waves in the magnetic fields around Jupiter split out radio emissions that could be detected on Earth. But Dr. Burrows said that at the distance of the brown dwarf, more than a dozen light-years into deep space, those emissions could never be picked up. ``That they do see emission from a sister object at such a distance is quite amazing,'' he said. Ordinary stars with relatively low masses do show energetic flaring, Dr. Burrows said, but their magnetic fields are also much stronger. Flares on the Sun often occur when magnetic fields ``reconnect,'' or suddenly snap like rubber bands after they break and then splice together in new configurations. So a weak magnetic field would not be expected to create strong flaring. Another astrophysicist, Dr. Jeffrey Linsky of the University of Colorado, said those apparent mysteries might carry a message about the difference between true stars and brown dwarfs. The cooler cores of brown dwarfs, like a pot of soup on a low flame, might create less turbulence inside the dwarfs, Dr. Linsky said. That relative quiescence might generate weaker magnetic fields--but possibly with conformations, or geometries, that make them more likely to reconnect. If that is the case, Dr. Linsky said, then perhaps ``the geometry is very different in such a way that it produces a few very large flares.'' Dr. Lars Bildsten, an astrophysicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, cautioned that because brown dwarfs were so different from the Sun, it was hard to know what to expect from them. The radio observations were at least consistent with sketchy observations in other bands of the spectrum, Dr. Bildsten said. Other scientists said they were at a loss to explain the puzzling findings, whose authors include Mr. Berger, Dr. Kulkarni and Dr. Frail as well as about a dozen graduate and undergraduate students from places like Oberlin College in Ohio, Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Ga., and New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. ``This is a pretty amazing result,'' said Dr. Jill Knapp, a Princeton astronomer. ``There seem to be some quite unexpected things going on with these very cool, low-mass objects.''

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as we acknowledge the passing of an entire decade since the victory of coalition forces in Desert Storm, we must simultaneously admit that this military victory has not translated into achievement of desired objectives. Recent events and intelligence assessments have once again focused attention on Iraq. Saddam Hussein has rebuilt any weapons production capabilities that were damaged or destroyed in the Desert Fox operations in late 1998. Despite military defeat, despite thwarted attempts by the U.N. Special Commission, and despite a decade of sanctions, Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership remains a threat. Two weeks ago strikes at command and control centers outside of the no-fly zones reminded the American public that our pilots have been patrolling Iraqi skies for ten years. Although we haven't yet lost any pilots or planes in this ongoing operation, a decade of this routine and the wear and tear on the aircraft without any end in sight has caused many people to question the prudence of this policy and approach. The reason for this attack underscored again the constant risk to British and U.S. pilots in this mission. This article entitled ``Highly Dangerous'' highlights that risk. New Mexicans or New Mexico-based wings have been heavily involved in this mission. Cannon's 27th Fighter Wing and the 150th Fighter Wing, the ``Tacos'' of the New Mexico Air National Guard fly these patrols. As Iraqi air defenses get upgraded and Iraqi pilots continue to violate the no-fly restrictions, we must do everything possible to protect the U.S. personnel involved in these missions. I am grateful that Secretary Powell took it upon himself to tour the Middle East and began formulating new policies for the Bush Administration on Iraq. The baton passed from the Clinton Administration on Iraq offered no exit strategy. I guess as long as no one got killed, the previous Administration was comfortable wearing out our pilots and our military aircraft under the pretense that their policy was working. It wasn't and it's not. We need a comprehensive rethink. If our pilots are over there, it should be more than to patrol airspace while Saddam rebuilds his weapons production capacity and starves his people on the ground. I look forward to an enlightened and effective policy on Iraq. And I think daily about the safety of the pilots who continue to perform their duty. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Albuquerque Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will provide full funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid development of its nuclear weapons programs was that many of those who worked in the early uranium mines became afflicted with debilitating and too often deadly diseases, including various cancers and respiratory illnesses. These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank underground water that exposed them to radiation. The miners endured long, uncomfortable days many feet underground. One such miner was Paul Hicks, for whom this bill is named. Mr. Hicks of Grants, NM was a uranium miner for twelve years in New Mexico. He later worked as lead miner, a shift boss, and ended his career as a mine foreman. Paul was the President of the New Mexico Uranium Miners Council and he championed the fight on behalf of miners of the Najavo Nation, Acoma Pueblo, Grants, NM, Dove Creek, and Grand Junction, CO. Unfortunately, Paul passed away from bone cancer last year. Although Paul is no longer with us, his voice on behalf of uranium miners will forever be heard. As long as I'm in the United States Senate I will carry his torch until justice for all uranium miners is realized. Paul was not alone in his suffering. Other New Mexico uranium miners have been stricken by radiation-related diseases. Indeed, many of these miners were Native Americans--primarily from the Najavo Nation. As many as 1,500 Navajos worked in the uranium mines from 1947-1971. To these Americans, the Federal government owes a special duty of care. The government has a longstanding trust relationship with Native Americans based on treaties and agreements. I regret to say that as for the Najavo miners our government has failed miserably in protecting this trust relationship. After all, these Native American miners and all uranium miners helped build our nuclear arsenal--the arsenal that is, at least in part, responsible for ending the Cold War. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. Yet, despite their enormous sacrifice, the federal government failed to protect their health. The government had adequate warning about the radiation hazards associated with uranium mining. Nonetheless, prior to federal regulations in 1971, the miners were sent into poorly ventilated mines with almost no warnings about the dangers of radiation. After a 13-year fight we finally passed legislation to rectify this injustice in 1990. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was intended to provide fair and swift compensation for those miners, federal workers, and downwinders who had contracted certain radiation-related illnesses. Since 1990, more than 3500 claims have been paid by the federal government under RECA. However, by mid-2000 the fund had run dry. The bottom line is that there is not enough money for the RECA trust fund. In fact, the Justice Department, who administers this program, has been sending IOU's to individuals who have already been approved for benefits. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is unacceptable. Senator Hatch and I propose a bill seeking $84 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to pay those claims that have already been approved as well as the projected number of approved claims for FY 2001. We are also introducing legislation to make all future payments for approved claims mandatory. With this legislation, we will ensure that those who gave so much for our nation will at least receive their deserved benefits. We must never again let their sacrifice go unanswered. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Department of Justice IOU letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that will provide full funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund. One of the unfortunate consequences of our country's rapid development of its nuclear weapons programs was that many of those who worked in the early uranium mines became afflicted with debilitating and too often deadly diseases, including various cancers and respiratory illnesses. These miners and their families lived under tough conditions. Some lived in one-room houses located as close as 200 feet from the mine shafts. Their children played near the mines and their families drank underground water that exposed them to radiation. The miners endured long, uncomfortable days many feet underground. One such miner was Paul Hicks, for whom this bill is named. Mr. Hicks of Grants, NM was a uranium miner for twelve years in New Mexico. He later worked as lead miner, a shift boss, and ended his career as a mine foreman. Paul was the President of the New Mexico Uranium Miners Council and he championed the fight on behalf of miners of the Najavo Nation, Acoma Pueblo, Grants, NM, Dove Creek, and Grand Junction, CO. Unfortunately, Paul passed away from bone cancer last year. Although Paul is no longer with us, his voice on behalf of uranium miners will forever be heard. As long as I'm in the United States Senate I will carry his torch until justice for all uranium miners is realized. Paul was not alone in his suffering. Other New Mexico uranium miners have been stricken by radiation-related diseases. Indeed, many of these miners were Native Americans--primarily from the Najavo Nation. As many as 1,500 Navajos worked in the uranium mines from 1947-1971. To these Americans, the Federal government owes a special duty of care. The government has a longstanding trust relationship with Native Americans based on treaties and agreements. I regret to say that as for the Najavo miners our government has failed miserably in protecting this trust relationship. After all, these Native American miners and all uranium miners helped build our nuclear arsenal--the arsenal that is, at least in part, responsible for ending the Cold War. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. Yet, despite their enormous sacrifice, the federal government failed to protect their health. The government had adequate warning about the radiation hazards associated with uranium mining. Nonetheless, prior to federal regulations in 1971, the miners were sent into poorly ventilated mines with almost no warnings about the dangers of radiation. After a 13-year fight we finally passed legislation to rectify this injustice in 1990. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was intended to provide fair and swift compensation for those miners, federal workers, and downwinders who had contracted certain radiation-related illnesses. Since 1990, more than 3500 claims have been paid by the federal government under RECA. However, by mid-2000 the fund had run dry. The bottom line is that there is not enough money for the RECA trust fund. In fact, the Justice Department, who administers this program, has been sending IOU's to individuals who have already been approved for benefits. Frankly, this is unconscionable. Those who helped protect our nation's security through their work on our nuclear programs must be compensated for the enormous price they paid. Anything less is unacceptable. Senator Hatch and I propose a bill seeking $84 million in emergency supplemental appropriations to pay those claims that have already been approved as well as the projected number of approved claims for FY 2001. We are also introducing legislation to make all future payments for approved claims mandatory. With this legislation, we will ensure that those who gave so much for our nation will at least receive their deserved benefits. We must never again let their sacrifice go unanswered. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Department of Justice IOU letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to paragraph 2 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 107th Congress as adopted by the Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my colleague, Senator Murkowski, for his efforts in developing the National Energy Security Act of 2001. This act represents a collection of critically important actions; actions that can move the Nation beyond the almost perpetual energy crises that we've experienced in the last few years. Our Nation has not followed or even developed a comprehensive energy strategy for far too long. We've all paid the price for that omission. Major changes in energy availability and prices are devastating the lives of many of our citizens. We have seen oil prices gyrate in the last two years by over three times. At one extreme, we destroyed much of our ability to develop new oil and gas wells. At the other extreme, we impacted the Nation's economy. And throughout the last few years. we have prohibited exploration and utilization of public lands that could have been impacting some of our most critical shortages. Natural gas prices have more than tripled just this year in many parts of the country. The impact on millions of our citizens has created another major crisis. We have seen the economy of California, the sixth largest economy when compared to all the nations of the world, brought to its knees by the recent energy shortages. Blackouts have struck in unpredictable patterns, disrupting lives. Unfortunately, California is only the first of many areas that are likely to be impacted by the lack of past coherent policy. It has been terribly frustrating to me to recognize that most of these problems were caused by our own actions, or lack of actions. We have had help falling into these traps, of course, from OPEC for example. But much of these problems are completely predictable. Actions could and absolutely should have been taken to drastically mitigate the severity of the impacts. I appreciate that Senator Murkowski has taken care in his bill to recognize and emphasize that there is no one ``silver bullet'' to solve our nation's energy problems. His bill creates opportunities for all of the major energy sources to maximize their contribution to our nation's energy needs; that's the only credible approach to the severity of the current issues. His bill recognizes that no single energy source represents a vast untapped resource, ready for immediate exploitation. It recognizes that solutions have to include options that impact our needs in the near term, like more natural gas and safe pipelines, as well as approaches that have much longer lead times, like nuclear power and renewables. And while natural gas enables relatively near term impacts with only modest pollution concerns, it is a finite resource and any credible national energy policy has to address a future without readily obtained supplies of natural gas. Solutions have to build on our existing major national energy providers, like the coal and nuclear plants that provide more than 70 percent of our electricity today. And where these large providers have risk areas, like air emissions from coal and a credible national strategy for spent nuclear fuel, we must work diligently to address the risk areas. Where the past administration argued that these risks meant we should minimize the contribution from these sources, we should instead face the reality that these sources represent some of our major national strengths and end biases against their success. The days of arguing for massive research and incentives only for one single source of energy and only for improved efficiency, as if they alone can solve our nation's long term energy needs, must be put far behind us. They need to be recognized for what they are, important components of a coherent national energy strategy, and absolutely not a ``silver bullet.'' This National Energy Security Act addresses virtually all of these widely divergent, but critically important, areas of national policy. I enthusiastically support the act as a vitally necessary step in achieving the energy stability that our citizens demand. In selected areas, like coal and nuclear, additional bills may prove useful to target actions on these specific sources. I'm working on such a bill for nuclear energy, and Senator Byrd has a legislative thrust for clean coal. These bills can build on the National Energy Security Act and strengthen it in some key areas. I salute the efforts of the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his untiring efforts to advance this bill. It's not easy to include in one package a set of initiatives that impact all of the major sources of our Nation's energy. From new incentives for oil and gas exploration, to improved pipeline safety, to creation of vitally needed new domestic oil fields, to major expansion of our current woefully inadequate clean coal programs, to strong support for renewables, and to measures to ensure that nuclear energy remains a viable and strong option for our Nation's energy needs--this bill covers the whole range. I'm proud to join Senator Murkowski as a cosponsor of his National Energy Security Act of 2001 and urge my colleagues to join in supporting this key initiative.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as many Senators know, there has been a major problem in funding for health care for military families and military retirees since 1993. Budgets for the Defense Health Program have been submitted to Congress without requesting enough spending to cover all known medical and health care expenses. This problem has been recurring year after year because budget officials in the Department of Defense had been ``low balling'' their predictions of inflation in DoD's Defense Health Program; they have projected medical inflation at or below the overall economy's rate. Meanwhile, medical care costs have grown well above the national inflation rate. Since 1996 DoD has projected an average annual inflation rate of 1.8 percent in the Defense Health Program, but the actual average rate over that time period is 4.9 percent. Just last year, DoD predicted 2.1 percent inflation for the Defense Health Program in 2001; experts are predicting the rate to be 7.9 percent. This unacceptable budgeting practice has resulted in expenses being incurred but no funds to pay the bills. Congress has responded by funding these gaps with additional spending, usually in emergency supplemental appropriations bills. While we have addressed the problem when we ultimately learn the size of the funding gap, the inappropriate budgeting practices of the past have had a major negative impact on military service men and women, military retirees, and the dependents of both. When military medical personnel and civilian providers do not know if or when they will receive full funding, appointments for healthcare can be complicated, and the services rendered can be delayed or degraded. A system that many already find troublesome can become exasperating. This problem is not small; it directly affects an active beneficiary population of almost six million, including 1.5 million active duty servicemen and women, 1 million retirees, and 3.3 family dependents. For several years the problem has been growing, from approximately $240 million in 1994 to as much as $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2000. Coincident with the enactment of ``Tricare for Life'' and other new health care benefits in the Defense Authorization Act for 2001, the problem has remained at this all time high level and is currently estimated to be $1.2 billion for 2001. Some predict it may ultimately be $1.4 billion before the year is over. President Bush has already pledged that he will fully fund Tricare costs in 2002 at an estimated $3.9 billion, and I have every expectation that with the proper advice he will also fully fund all 2002 Defense Health Program costs. However, the earlier 2001 funding gap remains, and I believe Congress can and should act as promptly as possible to fully fund all known costs. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide a supplemental appropriation of the currently estimated $1.2 billion for the Defense Health Program for 2001. Because the money is needed on an urgent basis, I will discuss how we can address this matter with the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee when he convenes a meeting of the Defense Subcommittee on February 28 to conduct hearings on the Military Health System. I fully expect that we will act as promptly as possible and in time to address real needs. I am also announcing four specific recommendations for the Defense Health Program I will make as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for the 2002 congressional budget resolution: Sufficient budget authority and outlays to enable the enactment of the 2001 appropriations legislation I am introducing today. An additional $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2002 to accommodate actual inflation in DoD health care, rather than the unrealistic under- estimate left by the officials of the outgoing Administration. To accommodate future inflation, the budget resolution will also provide the requisite amounts of budget authority and outlays to accommodate 5 percent inflation for the next ten years. While I have every expectation that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will address this underfunding in the 2002 budget, I am adding these amounts, totaling $18 billion over 10 years, just in case their review of the defense budget has not yet addressed the unacceptable budgeting practices of the past. In its current estimates, the Congressional Budget Office has not included additional discretionary spending in its ``baseline'' for the ``Tricare for Life'' program. The technical reasons for this are esoteric, but the money is substantial, $9.8 billion over 10 years. If this money were not also added now, we would just be engaging in another form of underfunding. Congress and the executive branch have made various promises to both active duty and retired military personnel for their healthcare and the healthcare of their dependents. It is unacceptable to make these promises but not to include in the budget the money required to make good on them. The steps I am taking today are the first steps toward making that happen.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as many Senators know, there has been a major problem in funding for health care for military families and military retirees since 1993. Budgets for the Defense Health Program have been submitted to Congress without requesting enough spending to cover all known medical and health care expenses. This problem has been recurring year after year because budget officials in the Department of Defense had been ``low balling'' their predictions of inflation in DoD's Defense Health Program; they have projected medical inflation at or below the overall economy's rate. Meanwhile, medical care costs have grown well above the national inflation rate. Since 1996 DoD has projected an average annual inflation rate of 1.8 percent in the Defense Health Program, but the actual average rate over that time period is 4.9 percent. Just last year, DoD predicted 2.1 percent inflation for the Defense Health Program in 2001; experts are predicting the rate to be 7.9 percent. This unacceptable budgeting practice has resulted in expenses being incurred but no funds to pay the bills. Congress has responded by funding these gaps with additional spending, usually in emergency supplemental appropriations bills. While we have addressed the problem when we ultimately learn the size of the funding gap, the inappropriate budgeting practices of the past have had a major negative impact on military service men and women, military retirees, and the dependents of both. When military medical personnel and civilian providers do not know if or when they will receive full funding, appointments for healthcare can be complicated, and the services rendered can be delayed or degraded. A system that many already find troublesome can become exasperating. This problem is not small; it directly affects an active beneficiary population of almost six million, including 1.5 million active duty servicemen and women, 1 million retirees, and 3.3 family dependents. For several years the problem has been growing, from approximately $240 million in 1994 to as much as $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2000. Coincident with the enactment of ``Tricare for Life'' and other new health care benefits in the Defense Authorization Act for 2001, the problem has remained at this all time high level and is currently estimated to be $1.2 billion for 2001. Some predict it may ultimately be $1.4 billion before the year is over. President Bush has already pledged that he will fully fund Tricare costs in 2002 at an estimated $3.9 billion, and I have every expectation that with the proper advice he will also fully fund all 2002 Defense Health Program costs. However, the earlier 2001 funding gap remains, and I believe Congress can and should act as promptly as possible to fully fund all known costs. Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide a supplemental appropriation of the currently estimated $1.2 billion for the Defense Health Program for 2001. Because the money is needed on an urgent basis, I will discuss how we can address this matter with the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee when he convenes a meeting of the Defense Subcommittee on February 28 to conduct hearings on the Military Health System. I fully expect that we will act as promptly as possible and in time to address real needs. I am also announcing four specific recommendations for the Defense Health Program I will make as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for the 2002 congressional budget resolution: Sufficient budget authority and outlays to enable the enactment of the 2001 appropriations legislation I am introducing today. An additional $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2002 to accommodate actual inflation in DoD health care, rather than the unrealistic under- estimate left by the officials of the outgoing Administration. To accommodate future inflation, the budget resolution will also provide the requisite amounts of budget authority and outlays to accommodate 5 percent inflation for the next ten years. While I have every expectation that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will address this underfunding in the 2002 budget, I am adding these amounts, totaling $18 billion over 10 years, just in case their review of the defense budget has not yet addressed the unacceptable budgeting practices of the past. In its current estimates, the Congressional Budget Office has not included additional discretionary spending in its ``baseline'' for the ``Tricare for Life'' program. The technical reasons for this are esoteric, but the money is substantial, $9.8 billion over 10 years. If this money were not also added now, we would just be engaging in another form of underfunding. Congress and the executive branch have made various promises to both active duty and retired military personnel for their healthcare and the healthcare of their dependents. It is unacceptable to make these promises but not to include in the budget the money required to make good on them. The steps I am taking today are the first steps toward making that happen.