Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will withhold that. We are within a few minutes of having the last amendments ready that we have been working on collectively and collaboratively. Then we will be ready for final passage very soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are about to adopt a bill tonight commonly known as the energy and water appropriations bill, but everybody should know that, at a minimum, it is an interesting set of words--``energy and water.'' On the other hand, it is even more than an interesting set of words. There is a great irony with reference to this bill. First of all, believe it or not, by precedent, this bill contains all of the nuclear weapons research and development, preservation, and manufacturing, and along with it are all the water projects--the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all the waterways--and a whole group of nondefense-related science research projects. What has happened over the years, it seems to this Senator, is that piling these kinds of programs together and then limiting the amount of money has, over time, yielded more attention to the water projects because there are hundreds of House Members concerned, and rightly so, and scores of Senators concerned, and here is our great nuclear weapons program. We have stood before the world and thanked our great scientists because they do not belong to the military. These are free-minded Americans, some who have worked for 40 years and are still at Los Alamos as the nucleus of scientists who understand the nuclear weapons. What I tried to do in the last few years is build a wall in the bill between the defense money and the nondefense money so we can move ahead with some of the things that are so desperately needed for the nuclear activities of this country, especially since we continue to say we have to compete in that area in the world until we have no more nuclear weapons, which we hope will occur sometime. In spite of this wall, and trying to hold the defense money harmless from domestic spending, what has happened this year in the House allocations just beats anything you could imagine. For the House decided to underfund both, believe it or not. They decided to underfund the President's defense requirements and underfund his nonnuclear, nondefense projects. We cannot expect to get a bill based on those numbers. I submit the Senate would have a lot of difficulty accepting that bill that would come from those kinds of numbers. Thanks to Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, they have allocated $600 million more on the defense nuclear side than the House. And we are still short somewhere between $300 and $400 million for the water projects. So many of you Senators know that your water projects could not be accepted. We understand there are some new projects that have been new for 5 years, maybe some for 7. It is awful to still call them new, but they have not been started, so we call them new, and we cannot fund them. We are going to try to get some additional resources because every subcommittee is being helped along. If we can, we can do better when we come back. But I want to just share a couple things that I think everybody should know. There are two huge problems that exist with reference to our nuclear weapons activities and personnel and physical plant--where they live and work and do the kinds of things that keep us up there, where we can certify to the President of the United States, from these three nuclear labs, that our weapons are safe and will do what they are supposed to do. These lab directors--civilians--certify that based on what they have in their laboratories. To give you an example of how bad off we are on physical plant, I just want to cite to you a situation that you would find unbelievable at Y-12 over at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I say to the Presiding Officer, part of that is nondefense, as you well know. But part of it is defense and related to nuclear weapons. If you went there tomorrow and said: The subcommittee that funds this asked me to come and take a look at one of the big buildings in Y-12 that has some roofing problems, the first thing they would do to you, Mr. President--especially considering the condition of your scalp, where you have no protection from hair--they would put a helmet on you as soon as you walked in this building. Did you know that? A helmet. And you would say: What's that for? And they would say: Well, distinguished Senator, it is because if you walk around this building, the roof falls in on you in pieces. So we don't want to hurt you. Even though you're not doing anything that is harmful down here in your job, the roof falls in on you in pieces. This is a building, owned by the Department of Energy, which does nuclear deterrent work for the U.S. Government. It is a shame. We are repairing it. We are putting the money in this year. But just as we do that, there are 40- and 50- and 60-year-old buildings that are part of the complex that we still have alive in some of our laboratories, from the very first Manhattan Project, whenever that was. We have not rebuilt them. So scientists are finding it difficult, in today's America, to continue working at some of our labs. We need a major new program if we are going to maintain this situation of safe and reliable nuclear weapons, with whatever number of warheads. We need a program to start replacing these buildings. Either we are serious about this--we want the very best for our best scientists--or we do not. The second thing is there is a huge morale problem among the very best scientists, who have been with us a long time and know everything one could know about our nuclear weapons. There is a serious problem that is objectively recorded that says the young brilliant scientists coming out of our schools with Ph.D.s and post-docs are coming to the laboratories in smaller and smaller numbers per year when we go out to try to encourage them to come. In fact, it is tremendously off this year. The morale problem is so bad that the superscientists are beginning to quit. They are being offered an enhanced retirement program by the University of California. The professors and the university want this program because the University has too many senior professors. They need to tenure more new professors. But when this University program comes along it applies to the great scientists, too, at our laboratories. There is a morale problem built around the FBI and Justice Department from this last episode at Los Alamos, making a whole group of scientists in one of the most secret, most sophisticated, most important operations in nuclear weaponry in America feel as though they are criminals. They just do not appreciate this. They do not like that. Some of them have been there 35 years. They just do not like the FBI treating them all like criminals or even suggesting that, as patriotic scientists, they ought to take their lie detectors and be treated as if there is some criminal in their midst. Frankly, some have decided they are just not going to do that. I do not know where that ends up, but I submit it ought to end up soon for those who are threatened by prosecution from that last episode of a hard drive being found behind some kind of a multipurpose machine. If there is no evidence of spying and no evidence of distributing information, they ought to get on with this. They ought to get on with it. They ought to even talk to some of these scientists, who have been working for us 30, 40 years, about their attorney's fees, because every one of them has been looked at, and told: You might be the one we're looking for. It couldn't be all of them. When you put that kind of thing out, it labels everybody in a national laboratory. It includes our most patriotic nuclear physicist, who is one of the greatest design people in all of nuclear history. You are telling him: We are not quite sure about all this, but you may be the one, you could go to jail for 24 months--or whatever number is used. There is no spying. So why don't we get on with it? I have not said this publicly, but I thought I would use this opportunity tonight. It is serious business. Did you know that we keep saying the only thing the Soviet Union is doing well, in spite of their economic depression and all the rest, is to maintain a pretty adequate and sophisticated nuclear delivery system? I could spend the evening telling you about the difference between the two. They can maintain their weapons much easier than we can keep ours, because they make nuclear weapons differently. We make them sophisticated, complicated, and that is part of their greatness. They make them simple, robust, and re-make them very often, like every 10 years. They are not as worried about us. We keep them for many years, and then we try to prove they will last longer with this new program we are funding called the Stockpile Stewardship Program. That is my little summary. There is much more to talk about. I thought it would be good tonight to put in perspective the significance of this bill. It is not just for the harbors of America. It is for those laboratories and plants that harbor the scientists, the manpower, and the equipment to keep our nuclear weapons on the right path. That is pretty important stuff, it seems to me. My job is to make sure everybody at least understands part of it, so they will help us get out of the dilemma we are in and have a much more robust, much more positive atmosphere around these laboratories soon. In conclusion, there is a new man in charge. We ought to be hopeful. General Gordon has been put in charge of this under the new law which you helped us with, I say to the Presiding Officer--and many did--which put one person in charge of the nuclear weapons aspects at the DOE. We are so fortunate we got a four-star general, CIA oriented, Sandia Lab- trained individual who in retirement took this job. If it is going to be fixed, he will fix it. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand where we are, and we will be ready with the remaining amendments very soon. Since there is time remaining, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. We accommodate that. Mr. President, we have additional amendments we are working on with various staff on both sides of the aisle that are not ready, that are still being worked on. We will continue with the hope we will have them finished before the time comes for final passage of this bill. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4105 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make final revisions to the Missouri River Master Manual)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have additional cosponsors who were not included in the first en bloc acceptance. They are: Senator Kyl on 4076, Senator Kyl on 4078, Senator Bingaman on 4070, Senator Reid on 4085, Senator Domenici on 4024, and Senator Bingaman on 4071. I ask unanimous consent that these Senators be shown as cosponsors appropriately on those amendments to which I have referred.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of myself and Senator Reid, I have a series of amendments, again, offered by number, which are filed, which anybody can read, which have been carefully reviewed and can be agreed to with certain modifications. In each instance, the modification is before the Senator from New Mexico and has been reviewed by the Senator from Nevada and with the proponents of the amendment and the authorizing committee that might be interested. I send to the desk this list of modified amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Grassley from Iowa for 2 minutes with reference to explaining an amendment in which he procured a number of cosponsors, which was just accepted. He would like to talk about it. Heretofore, Senator Kyl was referring to the Senator from Iowa, and there were two Senators from Iowa on the floor. I believe it should be reflected that he was speaking of Senator Harkin from Iowa, not Senator Grassley. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Reid and I have jointly reviewed and considered a large number of amendments filed by our colleagues, to which we can agree. This is a little bit unique because all are filed, all have numbers, and all are, therefore, reviewable by anybody desiring to review them. I send to the desk a list of those amendments and ask they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 4024, 4032, 4033, 4039, 4040, 4042, 4046, 4047, 4057, 4062, 4063, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4083, 4085, 4088, 4093, 4100, 4102, and 4103, En Bloc

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl. I believe that is the end of the discussion, unless the Senator from Iowa wanted a couple of minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. We were offering this as if the Senator had not given it, and I was trying to say he already has. I thank the Senator for asking.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I think I said that. I am glad to have the clarification.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona wants to use a few minutes on this discussion. But before we do that, I wonder if I can get a unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on the Durbin amendment at 8 p.m. and there be up to 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided prior to the vote and no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote. Second, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Durbin amendment Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment--which he has already offered--the National Ignition Facility amendment, that time on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes for the full debate; that no second-degree amendments be in order; that Senator Harkin has used his time, and we will not use 15 minutes on our side. I further ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote relative to the Durbin amendment the two managers be recognized to offer all the cleared amendments and amendments that we have to modify to get cleared; And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the Durbin amendment the bill be advanced to third reading, the Senate proceed to passage of H.R. 4733, following the passage of the bill the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate which would be the entire subcommittee.

Mr. DOMENICI. Can we get an agreement with Senator Harkin?

Mr. DOMENICI. We will have an up-or-down vote. We checked that with the opposition. It is not me agreeing. He wants to agree to that. So when he arrives, there will be 10 minutes on a side. I say to the Senator, you will agree to withdraw your other two amendments and proceed with the amendment with reference to the Missouri River that we have seen?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I wonder if he would agree to 20 minutes equally divided?

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senators, I have talked with the majority leader, and I have talked to Senator Harkin. Even though there is a very large number of amendments, we are trying to finish tonight. We have arranged to get started with two amendments. We are going to accept one; and one is going to require a vote. Then, when we finish debating those--we might have to put off the vote, I say to Senator Durbin, for a little while while we work out all these amendments. But we will eventually, at some point, have a vote on Senator Durbin's amendment before we finish this bill. We are going to listen for 10, 15 minutes to Senator Harkin's concerns about the NIF project at Lawrence Livermore. Senator Reid and I have agreed we will accept his amendment tonight and proceed after that to debate Senator Durbin's amendment. I say to Senator Durbin, a Senator who is opposed to his amendment will arrive soon. I assume we will have a time agreement, if it is satisfactory to Senator Bond. Can we do that right now?

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no time scheduled for its adoption or for termination of debate on the floor?

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. Might I make a parliamentary inquiry? We now are on the energy and water appropriations bill; is that correct, Mr. President?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on perhaps as many as 50 or 60 amendments trying to get them narrowed down to a very few contentious issues. On behalf of Senator Reid, I think we can say we intend to finish tonight. We can try. I do not know how many votes we will have. In the meantime, we are still busy putting some language together. Senator Hutchison has asked that I yield 10 minutes to her. I will speak for 1 minute of her time, and I think Senator Dodd is going to use a couple minutes. I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be set aside at this point for Senator Hutchison to talk about a bill she is introducing.