Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I want to congratulate Senator Byrd on his comments with regard to the very distinguished Mike Mansfield, and what happened to him recently with the passing of his beautiful and wonderful wife. I, too, in reading about him--I didn't experience as much of him as the Senator from West Virginia did--but he did things in a rather sensational and unique way. Even though I didn't know him as long as the Senator from West Virginia, and didn't feel his presence as much, he is a very wonderful American. Can you imagine in his early life what he did, how he became educated and found himself majority leader of the Senate? He did that for a long time, and is still the recordholder.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have up to 20 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume we need Senator Sessions' concurrence.

Mr. DOMENICI. Up to 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Sessions would like to follow me with 5 minutes, if there is no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in strong support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4578, the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the joint House-Senate conference committee, I appreciate the difficult task before the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member to balance the diverse priorities funded in this bill--from our public lands, to major Indian programs and agencies, energy conservation and research, and the Smithsonian and federal arts agencies. They have done a masterful job meeting important program needs in this final bill. The pending conference report provides an unprecedented $18.9 billion in new budget authority and $11.9 billion in new outlays to fund the Department of Interior and related agencies. When outlays from prior- year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account the Senate bill totals $18.9 billion in BA and $17.4 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Senate bill is exactly at the revised section 302(b) allocation for both BA and in outlays filed by the Appropriations Committee earlier today. I would particularly like to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for their commitment to Indian programs in this year's Interior and related agencies appropriation bill. They have included increases of $160 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs education construction, $214 million for the Indian Health Service, and nearly $102 million for the operation of Indian programs. I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for bringing this important measure to the floor with significant resources totaling $1.6 billion to address the aftermath of the devastating summer and fall forest fires, including my initiative to undertake hazardous fuels reduction activities within the urban/wildland interface to protect our local communities--the so-called Happy Forests initiative. This bill also includes an important, bipartisan compromise to establish a new Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Program that will dedicate $12 billion over the next six years to conservation programs. This is an unprecedented commitment to conservation efforts by the Federal Government. I am pleased to support this initiative in its final form. I appreciate the consideration given by my colleagues to several priority items for my constituents in New Mexico, which are included in the final bill. I urge my colleagues to support the final version of the fiscal year 2001 Interior and related agencies Appropriations bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Bingaman to introduce the ``Physician Recruitment and Retention Act of 2000.'' Almost like clockwork one can pick up an Albuquerque newspaper and read about the shortage of physicians in New Mexico and the resulting problems. When individuals have difficulty receiving adequate medical treatment, action must be taken. For example, in Albuquerque an urban area of almost 700,000 there are only two neurosurgeons besides the five practicing at the University of New Mexico. Such a ratio can only cause one thing, severe difficulties for patients. Thus, a patient recently waited eighteen hours in an Albuquerque emergency room before seeing a neurosurgeon. I would ask my colleagues the following: what good are hospitals filled with the latest technology if there are not enough doctors? And what good are modern medical offices if there are not enough doctors to treat the patients in a timely manner? The problem I have just described is not just occurring in New Mexico, rather other states are experiencing similar problems because of a common set of problems. I would submit the combination of high levels of poverty and low Medicare reimbursement rates causes a twofold problem. First, patients often have difficulty obtaining timely care and second, states cannot effectively recruit and retain their physicians. Our Bill builds upon the simple proposition that if Medicare Physician reimbursement rates are raised, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries. The Bill we are introducing creates a two state demonstration program to address these problems by increasing Medicare Physician reimbursements by 5 percent for a period of three years if certain criteria are met. The Bill also authorizes a GAO study to determine whether: (1) patient access to care and the ability of states to recruit and retain physicians is adversely impacted when the enumerated factors in the previous section are present; and (2) increased Medicare Physician reimbursements improve patient access to care and the ability of states to recruit and retain physicians. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, on this very important issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put a little editorial up here, and I hope I made it big enough that those who photograph what we talk about here can see it. I want to read this paragraph in yellow, and I want to speak to Vice President Gore's constant harping about the 1 percent of the American taxpayers getting too much of a tax break. I would like to do that for about 10 or 12 minutes. But first, let me suggest to the middle-class American people who have been waiting for a tax cut that if you elect Vice President Gore, you can wait perhaps forever because, as this editorial says, he might say over and over and over--maybe as many times as he said ``1 percent'' the other night--that he is for middle-income Americans getting a tax break. But this is the Washington Post--not the Washington Times or the Albuquerque Journal--that says: If Mr. Gore believes middle-class people need a tax break, he might better give them one--and let them decide how to spend the money. If he believes the Government should do more to promote education, he could do so more effectively with truly targeted spending programs rather than with tax credits that, for example, go to those who could and would pay for tuition in any case along with those who need the help. But for political reasons, the Democrats, as in 1992 and 1996, believe they need to cloak their programs in the language and form of tax cuts. One result would be an ever more complex Tax Code. The truth of the matter is that the Vice President of the United States spoke the other night about the unfairness of the tax proposals of George W. Bush. I just want to start by correcting one thing for sure. There are no middle-income tax cuts in Vice President Gore's proposal--the last time he spoke to it, the second time he spoke to it, and the time he sent us an 81-page budget. There are no middle-class tax cuts. Why? Because he chooses to say to the American people: If you do this with your money, you get a credit; if you do that with your money, you get a credit. But for those who do not do this or that because they don't have any children to put in day care or they don't have any of the other things they need that he wants to give them tax credit for, the overwhelming percentage of the middle class gets zero. That is maybe what we ought to be talking about whenever he says 1 percent. Perhaps we ought to say middle-class people, zero; middle- class Americans, zero--maybe 16 times, as he did the other night in referring to ``1 percent.'' Having said that, I want to talk about the progressive taxes the American people pay and the progressive system we live under because I believe there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who have not been told what our Tax Code is and have not been told what George W. Bush's tax proposals would do. Let me try that for a few minutes. I just told you what the Washington Post said about his tax proposals. In essence, even when he chooses to help--that is, the Vice President--the middle-class Americans, he chooses, I say to my friend from Alabama, to tell them how to spend the tax cut. That is the essence of the difference between the across-the-board cut of George W. Bush and the Vice President, although he has much less on the tax side, in any event--the Vice President--but he chooses to say: Mr. and Mrs. America, I don't want you to have a $1,500 tax cut if you are making $60,000 or $50,000. What I want you to do, if you want to take advantage of what I want you to do, if you do one of these five or six things as we have said, you will get a tax break. If you are Mr. and Mrs. America, you might say: I don't need any of those taxes. Why don't you just give me my money and let me spend it? That is one of the very big differences between the two parties at this point, as indicated by this editorial. In 1992 and 1996, Vice President Gore again chose in behalf of his colleagues to say: We want to give you a tax cut, but do not misunderstand; you have to use it our way or you don't get it. Is there anybody in America who thinks a tax cut should be used only the way the Federal Government wants them to use it? I don't think they even understand a tax cut to be that. But you can rest on it, that is what he is talking about--not a single middle-income tax cut--zero. I repeat. I would like to talk a little bit on what has happened to the Tax Code of the United States. Mr. President and fellow Senators, we have the fairest and most progressive Tax Code any country has ever lived under. Let me tell you what it does today. If anyone wants one of these, I will gladly give them one. The Internal Revenue Service gives us the information, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a combined committee, gave us this information. Let me talk about the 1 percent. Fellow Americans, 1 percent of the taxpayers of America--1 percent-- currently pay a shocking 33 percent of the taxes. Let me repeat, Mr. President. On the income tax side, the top 1 percent of Americans pay 33 percent of the taxes that America collects from income. They are rather wealthy. They make $250,000 and over, and 1 percent pays 33 percent of the taxes. Let me right off the bat give you an astonishing number. If you are to adopt George W. Bush's across-the-board tax cut, guess what percent the top 1 percent will pay then? Remember I said, right now under our very progressive code, they pay 33 percent of all the taxes we collect. I say to my friend from Alabama, it is a startling revelation. After we cut everybody across the board, as George Bush suggests, the top 1 percent will pay 34 percent total taxes. In other words, their portion of the total taxes will go up 1 percent, not come down. Isn't that interesting? So everyone understands who is rich and who isn't and who pays a lot of taxes and who doesn't, let's talk about the top 10 percent of taxpayers. Most people watching and most people visiting are in that bracket because the top 10 percent of the taxpayers are people earning $79,000 or higher. How much of the total taxes collected by America from income does the top 10 percent pay? I am sure, unless someone has studied it, in your wildest guess you will not conclude this. Sixty- seven percent of the income taxes collected come from the top 10 percent of the people in this country who are earning $79,000. Imagine. Can anyone imagine a fairer system if you want to tax people who earn money than to have 1 percent of the population that makes substantial money pay 33 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent of 79 and higher pay 67 percent? Frankly, it is obvious to me our Vice President is, once again, running on an issue that has been tried before, and we are very grateful as a nation that it has never worked. He is practicing the art of class warfare. He wants to make sure Americans do not trust the capitalist system where people might make more money, one versus another, depending on what they are doing, what they have invested in, and for what they have taken a risk. He wants to make the issue that the top 10 percent, which pays 33 percent of the taxes, does not deserve to be looked at when we look at cutting taxes for Americans. I am quite sure that sooner or later the American people are going to catch on that everybody who pays taxes gets a tax break. So nobody will have a misunderstanding, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax break. I think that is pretty fundamental. There are many millions of Americans working for a living who do not pay any U.S. income tax. Right off the bat, when you speak about giving other people who are earning less tax breaks, we have to understand a very large percentage of Americans don't pay any taxes. They may think they are paying a lot because they are paying Social Security taxes, and neither candidate is recommending, from what I can tell, that we dramatically reduce the Social Security--other than George W. Bush saying let's investment 2 percent. Otherwise, I haven't heard anybody saying that onerous Social Security tax is the one that ought to be fixed. Let me repeat, when the tax plan is in place under Mr. Bush, the top 1 percent will pay $4 trillion in taxes when we have finished the tax across-the-board cut. Let's give that again: That top 1 percent will pay $4 trillion in income taxes, and it will be 34 percent of the new income taxes that we are taking in. What will that $4 trillion buy that 1 percent of Americans are paying in taxes? It will buy all of the following: All of our defense programs, welfare, food stamps, child nutrition, State child health insurance. We just picked some programs. That top 1 percent will pay for all of that out of what they pay in income taxes. If Mr. Gore continues to refer to this top 1 percent as public enemy No. 1, then I can only say that the top 1 percent are high-income folks; the top 10 percent earn $79,000 and above. One group pays 33 percent of the taxes; and the other group pays 67. What should we do? Should we say because they pay 67 percent of the taxes but they make $79,000 or more they should get no tax reduction? If you are going to have a tax reduction because you have a giant surplus, let's be fair and say the American Tax Code is fair. We ought to continue to be fair, leave it as fair as it was, but make sure we understand the top 10 percent deserve some tax relief, since they are paying 67 percent of the tax. Let me also suggest that the bottom rung of wage earners and taxpayers in America--so there is no misunderstanding about my progressivity comment that we have a progressive code--the bottom 50 percent pay 4 percent; the bottom 50 percent of our earners pay 4 percent of the taxes of America. I think we have a pretty fair system. In fact, it is very heavily skewed towards those people making $79,000 or more. But George Bush, from what I can analyze, intends to leave it the same. It will come out like it is in terms of progressivity, excepting that those in the top 1 percent, by a coincidence of reducing the total tax take, will end up paying 34 percent instead of 33--even if we give them a tax break. I do believe it is rather authentic when the Washington Post says to Vice President Gore, if you want to give the middle income a tax cut, give it to them. Don't tell them what they must use it for in order to get a tax credit or tax break. That is not very American. Why should the Government tell wage earners, people who are making money in the American system, what they must do with their income if they want a tax break? I thought if you were going to give it back, you would give it back to them so they can spend it. I will discuss another issue, Mr. Vice President. I don't come today to the floor to talk about the case of the schoolgirl in Florida who had to stand for one of her first days of classes this fall because $150,000 worth of computers had yet to be unboxed. That is one of the statements made by our Vice President in his debate. It is now, today, authentic, that is not a true statement. The people from that school and that school district have denied it. I think by this hour the Gore campaign has said it is a mistake. The Vice President said essentially in his own words that the analysis of his budget from the budget experts who work for this Senator, the chairman of the Budget Committee, although they happen to work for me, what they produced as the estimate of the cost of his budget ideas would use up the entire surplus and $700 to $900 billion of the Social Security surplus. He said something like, it is not worth the paper. I have analyzed with this same staff many budgets. They have come out as right as anyone around. They said before the Vice President put his entire package together, that if every single program he advocates would get funded--it is 200 or more new programs--there will be between 20,000 and 30,000 new Federal employees. Incidentally, when the Vice President takes great credit for shrinking the Government and says we have reduced the number of people working for the Government, it would be good to note that 90 percent of the shrinkage of Federal employees is because the military was reduced. Between 85 and 90 percent of that entire personnel reduction is from military reductions. But let's get back to this. That budget staff said there are 200 new programs in the Vice President's ideas for America. They also suggested to me it is a new era of big government, excessive government, and obviously huge increases in what government will do. I laid that before the Senate in this report. It is as correct today as it was then. And, indeed, we have now seen Vice President Gore's plan all in one package. They reanalyzed it and said their original estimate is right, that he would have to spend the surplus to pay for his entire budget. We will have that report next week in an edition similar to this one, in which each program is analyzed and we tell the American people either the Vice President is suggesting myriad programs he does not intend to do or intends to do less than he said because if he is going to do what he says in his last written proposal, you cannot do those programs without spending all of the surplus and part of--not all of it but part of the surplus that belongs to Social Security. I close by saying the Vice President Tuesday night talked a lot about the lockbox. Isn't it amazing that Democrats, including the Vice President, talk about the lockbox as if they invented it; they pursued it; they are the ones who really advocated it and kept it alive. I want to say this is one time when Senator Domenici has to say: That is not true. It came out of the Budget Committee and I was the first Senator to suggest it. The proposal I suggested has never been voted on to this date because it is a real lockbox. It really makes it tough to spend either Social Security--and if you want to use the same format for Medicare, that is fine. But let's get it straight. We have been trying to get a lockbox passed up here from our side. Whatever we propose is either too strict, too rigid, doesn't have enough flexibility for the Treasury Department, or something. But let's make sure everybody understands we started the idea; we pursued it with great vigor. It is now part, I believe, of what we believe. Whether we get it passed or not, in our form, I believe everybody around here is going to be frightened to death if a Budget Committee says: Hey, this budget is spending Social Security surplus money. I believe we have that ingrained in our minds because the public expects it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I, first, congratulate Senator Gorton. Everything considered--the pressure of the closing, the politics of this season--I think he produced a very good bill and I compliment him. I would like to quickly talk with him about three issues because they have been very dear to me and we have finally come around to solving all three of them in this bill. First, the American Indian people will thank us because for the first time we are making the case for replacing Indian schools. They are so much in disrepair that nobody would send their kids to them, but there are no other schools to go to; they are out in Indian country, and we, the Government, happen to own them. There has been a dramatic increase this year. Thanks to this committee, we will add six new schools, and we will do a very large amount of maintenance on buildings that desperately need it. If Congress will heed what was discussed, they will do this for 5 or 6 years and get rid of the entire backlog. Senator, you have heard me for years ask the administration to give us a multiyear budget proposal to take care of Indian schools because if we don't pay for them nobody will. They are ours. This year the President put such language in his budget after consultation with a number of us. It is a little late, but nonetheless the Indian people can finally say, ``We see some daylight,'' with reference to adequate schools for our kids.

Mr. DOMENICI. I also say, overall, when we make requests of you and your people, and Senator Byrd and his people, I do not think in any case for me we could have been treated more fairly. Every request was looked at carefully. I thank my colleague so much for the many things he was able to do for my State. I will enumerate them and perhaps come to the floor before the Senator is finished and talk with a little more specificity. But I thought before he left his opening statement too far behind, I would like to add my words at the end of it as I have this morning.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator, my good friend, very much. Second, we debated on the floor of the Senate an interesting sounding amendment. We called it ``Happy Forests.'' It was a $240 million amendment on this bill on the floor. I thought I was going to get a lot of guff here on the floor because I asked for $240 million and divided it among the two agencies that control our property, the Forest Service and the BLM. What I wanted to do with the money was to push, with a great deal of vigor, for these two Departments to go out and inventory where the forests were close to our cities, where the forests have grown up, where cities have grown up and where there is a proximity of buildings and people to the forest because that is very risky. We did strike a positive tone with the administration when they admitted that there were many such cases and many examples. We have cited examples of a city such as Santa Fe in New Mexico where its water resource is right in the forest. If that forest happened to burn, they would lose their water supply. So we thought we ought to pursue this and start a list of those and make the Federal Government start to list the risky ones and then start to clean them up. We had to argue for 3 days. We got about 75 percent of what we wanted. We gave in to the administration on some in a very valid compromise. But I can say as to number, as many as a few hundred communities that are right in the forests, they should be seeing the Federal Government around coming up with some plans to try to alleviate this underbrush problem and growth that may, indeed, cause these communities to burn when we could prevent it with some maintenance and cleanup. We have not reached, to my satisfaction, language that will push this expeditiously because they are fearful in the White House that we are going to push some of the environmental laws. We made it clear the environmental laws apply. Nonetheless, there will be some difficulty on the part of the bureaus of the Federal Government because they have to move with some dispatch and they have to advise people a lot more than they ever did about the proximity of fire and the risk to them and where they are scheduled to do the cleanup--where is that? They are going to have to start advising communities. So I thank my good friend for that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. By the way, that is going down to the President soon--I don't know how long it will take--and it will come back here with a veto, and we do intend to work as expeditiously as we can to repass it with the many things that are in there for your sake. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of extending enabling legislation for the proposed Air Force Memorial. Much has already been accomplished by the Air Force Memorial Foundation in its effort to make the Memorial a reality. More time is necessary, however, to complete the work that is left to ensure that our Air Force heroes are properly recognized. Despite decades of unflagging commitment to America's national security, the U.S. Air Force is the only branch of the armed services without a memorial in the Nation's Capitol The time has come to establish a site where the American people can honor their aviation heroes. Building the memorial will accomplish this by recognizing yesterday's aviation pioneers, serving as a tribute to those serving their country today, inspiring future generations to proudly serve in the Air Force in the future, and by preserving the airpower lessons of the 20th century. American policymakers have long understood the importance of establishing air superiority during military crises. Time and again, the United States Air Force has answered the call of duty and performed with distinction. Mr. President, we owe these brave men and women the honor of their own memorial, and I urge my colleagues to support extension of this enabling legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee to reflect amounts provided for emergency requirements. I hereby submit revisions to the 2001 Senate Appropriations Committee allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget authority Outlays ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Allocation: General purpose discretionary............................. $600,351,000,000 $592,809,000,000 Highways.................................................. ....................... 26,920,000,000 Mass transit.............................................. ....................... 4,639,000,000 Mandatory................................................. 327,787,000,000 310,215,000,000

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation of importance to military members serving at Cannon Air Force Base and the community serving that Air Force Base. This bill would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to convey hospital equipment from a closed hospital facility at Cannon to a new public hospital in Portales, New Mexico. This is another win-win possibility for the local Air Force personnel and the surrounding community. The hospital at Cannon Air Force Base was closed several years ago. However, the equipment remains at that facility and has been collecting dust since the facility's closure. A new, state-of-the-art hospital is now being built to serve Roosevelt County citizens. While the County has taken tremendous strides towards establishing a first-rate hospital, excess equipment from the Air Force Base would help ameliorate immediate costs of fully equipping the new hospital. In addition, service members and their families who reside in Portales will certainly make use of the new hospital facility in their area. The Wing Commander and Medical Commander at Cannon Air Force Base agree that this is a beneficial arrangement. They have met with local community leaders and civilian hospital administrators to carefully review what equipment from the closed Air Force facility should be transferred to the new community hospital. Everyone agrees that this is a positive action to strengthen relations and provide better medical care for both civilian and military community members. Mr. President, the Air Force is striving to explore novel, beneficial arrangements with local civilian communities to provide medical care for its personnel. This bill, which is entirely discretionary, but would expedite the process, is an easy, common sense approach to achieving that goal. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation of importance to military members serving at Cannon Air Force Base and the community serving that Air Force Base. This bill would allow the Secretary of the Air Force to convey hospital equipment from a closed hospital facility at Cannon to a new public hospital in Portales, New Mexico. This is another win-win possibility for the local Air Force personnel and the surrounding community. The hospital at Cannon Air Force Base was closed several years ago. However, the equipment remains at that facility and has been collecting dust since the facility's closure. A new, state-of-the-art hospital is now being built to serve Roosevelt County citizens. While the County has taken tremendous strides towards establishing a first-rate hospital, excess equipment from the Air Force Base would help ameliorate immediate costs of fully equipping the new hospital. In addition, service members and their families who reside in Portales will certainly make use of the new hospital facility in their area. The Wing Commander and Medical Commander at Cannon Air Force Base agree that this is a beneficial arrangement. They have met with local community leaders and civilian hospital administrators to carefully review what equipment from the closed Air Force facility should be transferred to the new community hospital. Everyone agrees that this is a positive action to strengthen relations and provide better medical care for both civilian and military community members. Mr. President, the Air Force is striving to explore novel, beneficial arrangements with local civilian communities to provide medical care for its personnel. This bill, which is entirely discretionary, but would expedite the process, is an easy, common sense approach to achieving that goal. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to tell the Senate this is a good bill. I hope we will pass it. The Senate passed this bill 97-1. It went to conference. Obviously, there were some changes made in conference but clearly not significant enough to have somebody vote against this bill. When the call of the roll occurs, we are going to hear that a number of Senators on the other side of the aisle are going to vote against the bill. I hope everybody understands that most of them have asked for things in this bill, and they have been granted things in this bill their States desperately need. I don't know how all that will work out, but they are being asked to vote against this because the President of the United States, after signing similar language regarding the Missouri River four different times, has suggested that this year, if it is in this bill, he will veto it. This bill has taken much work on the defense side; that is, for the nuclear deterrent, nuclear weapons activities of America, and those activities related to it that have to do with nonproliferation. We have done an excellent job in increasing some of the very important work of these National Laboratories and our nuclear defense deterrent, people, equipment, and facilities. Sooner or later many more Senators are going to have to recognize the significance of that part of this bill. The second part of it has to do with nondefense discretionary appropriations; that is, mostly water and water projects across this great land. Many of them are in here for Senators on the Democrat side of the aisle. We were pleased to work with them on that. I hope the bill will get sent to the President and we will be able to work something out with reference to the Missouri River. The President indicates now that he doesn't want that paragraph, that provision, so- called section 103, in this bill. I am not going to argue as eloquently as Kit Bond, the Senator from Missouri, did with reference to why that provision should be in the bill. But I can say that a compelling majority of Senators agreed with him when we had a vote on it, and then agreed to vote on final passage which included that. To make sure everybody understands a little bit about where we have been and where we are going, I will not talk much about this chart, except I will ask that we take a quick look at the orange part of this chart. You see how big that keeps growing while people worry about this bill, and legitimately so. Senator McCain argues that perhaps there are some things in this bill that should not be in it. He may be right. Let me tell my colleagues, when you have to put something together for a whole House and a whole Senate, sometimes you have to do some things that maybe one Senator wouldn't want done. This orange shows what is happening to the American budget of late. This is the 2000 estimate, the orange part of the entitlements and interest we pay in our budget for the people. See how it continues to grow. The yellow is the Defense Department. If you will focus for a moment on this purple piece, that number, $319 billion out of a budget of $1.8 trillion, is the 11 appropriations bills that have not yet been passed. May I point it out again. This is the entitlements plus the interest. This is defense, which has been passed. And this, which you can see from this year to this year to this year, not very big changes compared to the other parts of the budget, this is what the 11 appropriations bills will amount to more or less, including this one. It means that one-sixth of the Federal budget is at issue when we discuss the 11 appropriations bills that remain. Two of them were defense, and they belong in this portion of the budget. But if you look out, as we try to project 2005 and beyond, to see what keeps growing even though we are paying down the national debt, the entitlement programs keep growing. And the difference in this part, the purple part, is rather insignificant in terms of growth. This bill is slightly over the President's budget in the nuclear deterrent, nuclear laboratory, nuclear weapons activities, and is slightly over the President on all of the water projects. I failed to mention the science projects that are in this bill, which are nondefense projects. They go on at all of the laboratories, and they are the cutting edge of real science across America--in this bill we are talking about. All of these, this and 11 others, belong in this small amount. Even for those who think it is growing too much, our projections beyond the year 2005 are that it still will be a very small portion of our Federal budget with a very large amount going to entitlements. I wish I had one more I could predict, the surpluses along here, because I don't believe you need to worry about having adequate surpluses to take care of priorities in the future, to take care of Medicare, prescription drugs, and Medicare reform. Nor do I think there will be a shortage of money, some of which we should give back to the American people before we spend it. My closing remarks have to do with what should we do with the great surplus the American people are giving us by way of taxes, which they have never paid so much of in the past. I look to the person who had most to do with our great thriving economy, Dr. Alan Greenspan. He mentions three things to us: First, you should put as much of it as you can on the national debt. The second thing is, you should give the people back some of it by way of taxes. That is the second best thing. He comments, ``If you are going to look at the big picture, the worst thing you can do with the surplus for the future of our children and grandchildren is to spend it on new programs.'' So I suggest we all ought to be worried about the future. But today we ought to get an appropriation bill passed. I hope our people will understand that in spite of the plea from the minority leader that you vote against it because of the Missouri language, we can pass it today and see if in the next few days we can work something out with the President if he remains dedicated to vetoing this bill over the one issue of which the Senator from Montana spoke.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DOMENICI. I was just going to ask. I saw him on the floor and he mentioned he might want to speak. I need about 6 minutes, so could you take the intervening time before the 6 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to commend a fellow New Mexican, Dr. Wendell Weart. He is a remarkable scientist, an international authority on radioactive waste management, and the Senior Fellow at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After his distinguished career, he is retiring in October. His outstanding abilities have been crucial to the success of the world's first deep geologic repository for radioactive waste. It is highly appropriate that we recognize his contributions to that project and to the nation. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico began receiving defense-program radioactive wastes in 1999. The process that led to its opening was long and difficult, requiring the solution of innumerable technical and social problems. Although many people contributed to the solution of those problems, Dr. Weart's role was paramount throughout. He led Sandia's technical support for the project from its beginnings in the early 1970s. In the early years his efforts were essential to the exploratory investigations and the final selection of the repository site. He then led the project through the conceptual design of the repository, through the formulation and implementation of the investigations that demonstrated the site's suitability, and through the arduous process of obtaining regulatory approvals. The rigorous scientific basis finally achieved for the repository was due in no small part to Dr. Weart's own scientific expertise and to his unmatched leadership. At least as important as these highly technical contributions was Dr. Weart's ability to instill confidence among the scientific community and the public. His skill in explaining complex issues, his truthfulness in all controversies, and his tireless patience in dealing with questions and frustrations for more than twenty-five years--all were indispensable contributions to the project. Without the trust Dr. Weart engendered, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, though scientifically well grounded, might still have failed to obtain scientific, regulatory, and social approval. The permanent disposal of radioactive wastes has proved intractable in many countries. Thanks largely to Wendell Weart, the United States now has an operating repository. Congress and the American taxpayers owe him our most sincere thanks and our best wishes.