Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2603, the pending legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for bringing a balanced bill to the floor. The bill supports ongoing Senate operations and those of the congressional support agencies we depend upon, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the General Accounting Office. It also sustains a commitment to increased security for the entire Capitol complex and the thousands of visitors we receive each day. The bill as reported to the Senate provides $1.7 billion in new budget authority and $1.45 billion in new outlays for the operations of the Senate, joint items, and our related agencies. The House will add the funding for its operations to its version of this bill. When outlays from prior-year budget authority, funding for House items, and other actions are taken into account, the bill totals $2.6 billion in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2001. The Senate bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority, and it is $4 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The Senate bill is $54 million in budget authority and $53 million in outlays above the FY 2000 level. It is $216 million in budget authority and $169 million in outlays below the budget request. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the reported bill be inserted in the Record at this point. S. 2603, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--SPENDING COMPARISONS--

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join the community of Ruidoso, New Mexico in mourning the loss of Samuel James Tobias. Sam, a twenty-four-year veteran of the U.S. Forest Service, lost his life this week battling the Scott Able Fire in southern New Mexico when the spotter plane he was in crashed shortly after takeoff. His loss leaves a tremendous void for his wife, Jackie, the Forest Service, and the entire community of Ruidoso. Sam joined the Forest Service in 1977 and worked in Recreation Management his whole career because of his love for the National Forest and the public. Preserving the land was his passion, and although fire fighting was the most dangerous aspect of his job, it was the part he especially enjoyed. Sam joined many local and regional fire teams and became trained as an Air Attack Coordinator. His skills in coordinating air tankers, helicopters and fire crews became well known and he gained the respect of all throughout the fire fighting community. Sam was also deeply respected as a person. A big man with a soft voice, he was known as always having a smile on his face. One of his coworkers remembered him as ``the peacemaker with that big smile, always helping and giving good advice.'' Others have talked about the ``twinkle in his eyes'' and his big ``bear hugs.'' His lifelong friend, Dale Mance, recalled how Sam helped him find his way out of the steel mills of Pennsylvania and into a career with the Forest Service. There are so many examples of Sam's goodness; obviously, he had a heart that matched the size of his physical stature. The many testimonals about Sam that his friends and family have offered carry a common theme: his willingness to help others, his selflessness, his concern for others. Often, such character is uncommon in men. For Sam Tobias it was natural, because he held genuine love for his family, his neighbors, and the land. Mr. President, I share the grief of the community of Ruidoso and my heartfelt condolences go out to the Tobias family.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Military Construction Appropriations bill provides $8.6 billion in new budget authority and $5.1 billion in outlays for Military Construction and Family Housing programs and other purposes for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2001. A major aspect of this bill is that it is the vehicle for emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for U.S. military operations in Kosovo, East Timor, and Mozambique and for other purposes. Those other purposes include the repeal of ``pay shifts'' and obligation delays enacted last year, based on agreements with the Office of Management and the Budget. Because these obligations, amounting to $3.6 billion, will be moved from fiscal year 2001 to 2000, there is a resulting negative impact on 2001 outlays in this bill. The net outlay impact of the bill is reduced from $8.6 billion to $5.1 billion. This legislation provides for construction by the Department of Defense for U.S. military facilities throughout the world, and it provides for family housing for the active forces of each of the U.S. military services. Accordingly, it provides for important readiness and quality of life programs for our service men and women. The fiscal year 2000 supplemental provisions of this bill support ongoing peacekeeping operations of U.S. Armed Forces, permit the payment of past due health care obligations of active duty military personnel and their dependents, and provide compensation to the Department of Defense for unforeseen increases in fuel costs. The bill is within the revised section 302(b) allocation for the Military Construction Subcommittee. I commend the distinguished subcommittee Chairman, the Senator from Montana, and the Chairman of the full committee, the Senator from Alaska, for bringing this bill to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation. The bill provides an important and necessary increase in budget authority above the President's request for military construction in 2001. Most of the $601 million increase in budget authority funds high priority projects that the President's request failed to address. The bill also reimburses the military services for the costs already incurred for their peacekeeping operations, and it permits these operations to continue to the end of the fiscal year. It also fully funds healthcare needs and fuel costs that have been left unaddressed by the President but must be funded. Because the bill makes important additions to the President's requests, supports appropriate full funding budgeting practices, and funds highly important programs for our armed services, I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the relationship of the bill to the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of describing the nature of this very important amendment to provide $85 million on an emergency basis to begin the process of reopening and restarting the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the aftermath of the worst wildfire in the history of New Mexico. The cost of restoring the laboratory to full operations will undoubtably grow as the Lab discovers further conditions upon reopening and restarting facilities and buildings. But this amendment is designed to provide the first installment of resources to assist the laboratory on its road to recovery. The funds will be used for: Restart of laboratory operations (including replacement of lost scientific equipment, computers, and government vehicles) Fire protection (including the replacement of broken or worn fire fighting equipment, replacement of destroyed or malfunctioning fire alarms, and the expansion of fire alarm coverage) Environmental protection (including extension erosion control efforts to prevent mud slides; expanded air monitoring and equipment replacement; expanded water monitoring of run-off and groundwater) Cean-up and infrastructure repair (including clean-up of smoke and fire damage, replacement of electrical power lines and transformers, repair of water and gas infrastructure, and repair of communications systems) Amendment No. 3157

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Directed Energy Coordination and Consolidation Act of 2000. While enactment of the provisions in this bill will greatly enhance and accelerate some of the research, development, test and evaluation activities in my home state of New Mexico, I firmly believe taking this action is also in our national interest. Last year's Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to convene the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel (HELERP). This Panel was to make recommendations on a management structure for all defense high energy laser weapons programs. The authorization language also instructed the Panel to address issues in science and technology funding, the industrial base for these technologies, and possible cooperation with other agencies. Mr. President, let me briely outline some conclusions and recommendations made by the Panel. The findings include the following: Laser systems are ready for some of today's most challenging weapons applications, both offensive and defensive; laser weapons would offer the U.S. an asymmetric technological edge over adversaries for the foreseeable future; funding for laser Science and Technology programs should be increased to support acquisition programs and develop new technologies for future applications; the laser industrial supplier base is fragile in several critical laser technologies and lacks an adequate incentive to make investments required to support current and anticipated defense needs; DoD should leverage relevant research being supported by the Department of Energy and other agencies, as well as the private sector and academia; and, lastly, as in other critical high tech areas, it is increasingly difficult to attract and retain people with the skills necessary for directed energy technology development. In sum, the Panel found that these technologies have matured sufficiently to offer solutions to some of the most daunting defense challenges the U.S. currently confronts. However, other findings indicated that science and technology funding is inadequate to realize these aims, the industrial base is steadily eroding, and this field cannot recruit and retain adequate talent to remain viable. We have the means, but we're not making the investments required to achieve our goals. As requested by Congress last year, the High Energy Laser Master Plan approved by the Defense Department in March of this year proposes a different management structure. The Services all approved of this defense-wide management structure for making decisions regarding the specific technologies to pursue for specific defense applications and resource allocation. Mr. President, this legislation echoes the findings of the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel and codifies the proposed management structure outlined by the Panel. Furthermore, in accordance with the Panel's findings, the bill authorizes $150 million in defense- wide research and development funding for directed energy technologies. Up to $50 million of those funds can be utilized to leverage the directed energy expertise and technologies developed within our DOE laboratories. Lastly, this legislation requires that microwave technology investment decisions also be coordinated within this management structure. The bill would relocate the Joint Technology Office (JTO) proposed in the Master Plan from the Pentagon to Albuquerque, New Mexico, by January 1, 2001. This Office is currently being established at the Pentagon. However, the Pentagon is not a focal point for technology developments in directed energy. Albuquerque offers a sensible location for the JTO. Support for Albuquerque as a location is offered by the findings of the 912c Tri-Service Armament Panel Report. This Panel Report was an outgrowth of the July 1999 DoD ``Plan to Streamline DoD's Science and Technology, Engineering, and Test and Evaluation Infrastructure.'' This Army, Navy and Air Force Senior Steering Group proposed that all DoD Directed Energy Science and Technology and Test and Evaluation be consolidated at Kirtland Air Force Base. The Steering Group recommended creation of a DoD Directed Energy Center of Excellence at Kirtland that would be responsible for identifying, advocating, developing, and transitioning directed energy technology to meet all DoD requirements. Now that the High Energy Laser Master Plan has proposed an appropriate management structure, the time is right to take action. New Mexico is already a focal point for a lot of the research, development, test and evaluation activities in this field. Kirtland boasts tremendous assets to facilitate this research. White Sands is the premiere directed energy testing range. Co-locating the Joint Technology Office among a critical mass of directed energy activities-- both Army and Air Force--is not only sensible, it should also serve to facilitate this work. No doubt that the activities of the Air Force's Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland will be enhanced by this legislation. However, each of the Services will be required to compete within this management structure. Let me be clear. Implementation of this management structure, regardless of the location of the Joint Technology Office will have no impact on the existing laser programs, such as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), Airborne Laser (ABL) or Space-based Laser (SBL). The objective is to grow all directed energy programs desired by any one of the Services, depending on specific applications pursued. Any new programs will be competed--with one exception. The legislation includes a $20 million allocation for the Advanced Tactical Laser program under the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program Office in order to take a first initial step in addressing some of the industrial base concerns. American dominance relies heavily on our technological superiority. Unlike other instances where the Department of Defense is using outsourcing or privatization to reduce costs, the attrition within the research community will require significant renewed investments over a long period of time to rebuild in the future. We are steadily approaching this situation in the field of directed energy. The lack of emphasis on and investment in revolutionary technologies, such as directed energy, unnecessarily limits the myriad possibilities for effective, surgical defense against a range of missile threats and vast potential for numerous defense applications. Mr. President, in order to better leverage the federal Government's investment, ensure adequate stability in the industrial base, and promote educational opportunities in directed energy technologies, the Directed Energy Coordination and Consolidation Act of 2000 will take a critical first step. I ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring that we rigorously pursue directed energy solutions to our nation's defense needs. Mr. President, 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 offer the Directed Energy Coordination and Consolidation Act of 2000. While enactment of the provisions in this bill will greatly enhance and accelerate some of the research, development, test and evaluation activities in my home state of New Mexico, I firmly believe taking this action is also in our national interest. Last year's Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to convene the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel (HELERP). This Panel was to make recommendations on a management structure for all defense high energy laser weapons programs. The authorization language also instructed the Panel to address issues in science and technology funding, the industrial base for these technologies, and possible cooperation with other agencies. Mr. President, let me briely outline some conclusions and recommendations made by the Panel. The findings include the following: Laser systems are ready for some of today's most challenging weapons applications, both offensive and defensive; laser weapons would offer the U.S. an asymmetric technological edge over adversaries for the foreseeable future; funding for laser Science and Technology programs should be increased to support acquisition programs and develop new technologies for future applications; the laser industrial supplier base is fragile in several critical laser technologies and lacks an adequate incentive to make investments required to support current and anticipated defense needs; DoD should leverage relevant research being supported by the Department of Energy and other agencies, as well as the private sector and academia; and, lastly, as in other critical high tech areas, it is increasingly difficult to attract and retain people with the skills necessary for directed energy technology development. In sum, the Panel found that these technologies have matured sufficiently to offer solutions to some of the most daunting defense challenges the U.S. currently confronts. However, other findings indicated that science and technology funding is inadequate to realize these aims, the industrial base is steadily eroding, and this field cannot recruit and retain adequate talent to remain viable. We have the means, but we're not making the investments required to achieve our goals. As requested by Congress last year, the High Energy Laser Master Plan approved by the Defense Department in March of this year proposes a different management structure. The Services all approved of this defense-wide management structure for making decisions regarding the specific technologies to pursue for specific defense applications and resource allocation. Mr. President, this legislation echoes the findings of the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel and codifies the proposed management structure outlined by the Panel. Furthermore, in accordance with the Panel's findings, the bill authorizes $150 million in defense- wide research and development funding for directed energy technologies. Up to $50 million of those funds can be utilized to leverage the directed energy expertise and technologies developed within our DOE laboratories. Lastly, this legislation requires that microwave technology investment decisions also be coordinated within this management structure. The bill would relocate the Joint Technology Office (JTO) proposed in the Master Plan from the Pentagon to Albuquerque, New Mexico, by January 1, 2001. This Office is currently being established at the Pentagon. However, the Pentagon is not a focal point for technology developments in directed energy. Albuquerque offers a sensible location for the JTO. Support for Albuquerque as a location is offered by the findings of the 912c Tri-Service Armament Panel Report. This Panel Report was an outgrowth of the July 1999 DoD ``Plan to Streamline DoD's Science and Technology, Engineering, and Test and Evaluation Infrastructure.'' This Army, Navy and Air Force Senior Steering Group proposed that all DoD Directed Energy Science and Technology and Test and Evaluation be consolidated at Kirtland Air Force Base. The Steering Group recommended creation of a DoD Directed Energy Center of Excellence at Kirtland that would be responsible for identifying, advocating, developing, and transitioning directed energy technology to meet all DoD requirements. Now that the High Energy Laser Master Plan has proposed an appropriate management structure, the time is right to take action. New Mexico is already a focal point for a lot of the research, development, test and evaluation activities in this field. Kirtland boasts tremendous assets to facilitate this research. White Sands is the premiere directed energy testing range. Co-locating the Joint Technology Office among a critical mass of directed energy activities-- both Army and Air Force--is not only sensible, it should also serve to facilitate this work. No doubt that the activities of the Air Force's Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland will be enhanced by this legislation. However, each of the Services will be required to compete within this management structure. Let me be clear. Implementation of this management structure, regardless of the location of the Joint Technology Office will have no impact on the existing laser programs, such as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), Airborne Laser (ABL) or Space-based Laser (SBL). The objective is to grow all directed energy programs desired by any one of the Services, depending on specific applications pursued. Any new programs will be competed--with one exception. The legislation includes a $20 million allocation for the Advanced Tactical Laser program under the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program Office in order to take a first initial step in addressing some of the industrial base concerns. American dominance relies heavily on our technological superiority. Unlike other instances where the Department of Defense is using outsourcing or privatization to reduce costs, the attrition within the research community will require significant renewed investments over a long period of time to rebuild in the future. We are steadily approaching this situation in the field of directed energy. The lack of emphasis on and investment in revolutionary technologies, such as directed energy, unnecessarily limits the myriad possibilities for effective, surgical defense against a range of missile threats and vast potential for numerous defense applications. Mr. President, in order to better leverage the federal Government's investment, ensure adequate stability in the industrial base, and promote educational opportunities in directed energy technologies, the Directed Energy Coordination and Consolidation Act of 2000 will take a critical first step. I ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring that we rigorously pursue directed energy solutions to our nation's defense needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note on the floor with me this afternoon is Senator Bingaman. We are both here to speak about the disaster and catastrophe that has occurred in New Mexico. I would like to speak maybe for 5 or 6 minutes, then yield to my colleague, and then come back and do a little more. During my time in the Senate, which is now approaching 28 years, I vividly remember coming down and hearing Senators have to tell the Senate about a disaster of significant proportions in their home State. The Senator wanted to tell us about how bad things were and lay the groundwork for the Congress, the Government of the United States, to do what it must to help those who are victims in a disaster. To tell you the truth, I have been to Los Alamos, oh, so many times over the last 28 years. Most of them have been very joyous occasions, when we met with some of the greatest scientists in the world, talked about some fantastic science, met some wonderful people, and saw a beautiful town up there in the mountains. It came into being when the United States of America decided a former boys' academy up there in the mountains would be the center around which we would develop our first atomic weapons. It was a closed city for a long time but a beautiful place. Sure enough, never did I expect to see what I saw last Thursday when Senator Bingaman and I, the Secretary of Energy, and James Lee Witt, the head of our emergency disaster relief agency for the United States, and others flew out there. Then we helicoptered around. Then we drove the streets to see what was occurring. Senator Bingaman took a little different tour than I. He saw some of the housing. I saw where they set up the headquarters to manage and operate things. So he will have some very vivid recollections of what he saw, of houses burned to the ground. Essentially, it is, indeed, a very sad day when probably one of the greatest laboratories human beings have ever set up--in terms of great science, not just because of great buildings but because great scientists have lived there and worked--is surrounded by flames. Many people supported those most talented of Americans--and even some of our greatest friends from other countries have been there as part of America's research in atomic and nuclear weapons safety, responsibility, and reliability--to go there and see a ghost town as you drive the streets, with smoke on one side, fire on one side, a house burned down, your heart kind of goes out. A great deal of empathy pours from you. We are very lucky, the Senate should know; even though over 44,000 acres have burned, something like 400 housing units have burned to the ground, and upwards of 25,000 people have been evacuated--many are returning now. Damage and fire are still going in some of the canyons-- but, we are very grateful that in the canyons that are still burning there are not very many housing units in the path. The forest is still burning and will burn for a long time. Yet nobody died, nobody got seriously hurt. Two or three firemen were injured, as I understand it, and none of those was serious. The fire is now no longer threatening the houses of the city of Los Alamos or of White Rock, the adjoining community. In some very miraculous way, none of the big administrative and research buildings of the laboratory was hit by this fire. It went around them and got some housing subdivisions, but only a few buildings of minor significance that are part of this enormous science complex were burned. The houses that burned, burned right to the ground. All that is left is cement foundations, as Senator Bingaman will describe and perhaps show some pictures. If there were houses that had cars in the front yards, the cars were burned to a crisp. The metal is twisted and burned. In some places, you can see an icebox that is hanging over the vacuum that used to be sheltered by walls and roofs. The icebox just melted. It is no longer even noticeable. You cannot recognize it as being such. It is melted and completely different in form. Essentially, all this was going on right around and close to a laboratory that does an awful lot of nuclear work, that has some compounds that are housed in cement bunkers so nothing can happen to them. And, sure enough, to this day there has been no radioactivity escape from any of these buildings and/or research facilities. That is not just the Federal Government saying it. The New Mexico environmental department has monitored this. The greatest and best monitors from around the country are located there, and the ambient air monitors have indicated there is no radioactivity in the air. So now we have to start back up the path of trying to see how we can rebuild the lives of people there. I am not going to go into detail other than to say we are beginning to move in the right direction. The laboratory personnel will begin to move in and see what is needed. In one of the communities, people are coming back. Parts of Los Alamos will be reoccupied soon. But I am sure Senator Bingaman and I will be asking the Senate, from time to time, to assist us, either with legislation that will direct how this should be handled, or certainly with money that will make the repairs and bring this facility back to where maybe we could say we will make it as whole as possible. I want to close my first few remarks, and then yield to my friend, Senator Bingaman, by saying that right next to this forest, which surrounds Los Alamos, the Los Alamos property that belongs to the Department of Energy, is a national monument called Bandelier. It is rather renowned. Both Senator Bingaman and I have had reason to work specifically for things to preserve and make the Bandelier National Monument a great and beautiful place. But it appears that in order to clear out that Bandelier forest a bit, because so much growth had accumulated and because of so many fallen trees and other things, that a planned burn took place. It looks as if that planned burn got out of hand. It further looks as if it maybe should not have been started at all. I think the House passed a resolution today indicating that the U.S. Government is responsible for all these damages because of this controlled fire that got out of hand. Surely that will be looked at. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Senator Murkowski, with Senator Bingaman as ranking member, has asked the General Accounting Office to begin an investigation. The executive branch has been rather forthcoming. They have told us, by Thursday evening, no later than Friday, they will give us, and I presume the people of New Mexico, the country, and Los Alamos, the results of an evaluation by some of the Government's best experts on controlled fires and forest maintenance. They will tell us what they think went wrong. At this point, I do not think there is any question that, at least--I start with the proposition, and I am certain Senator Bingaman will address the same issue--we are responsible to make that community whole, to make those individual residents who lost their homes and lost their property whole, and whatever expenditures have been incurred by the people and by the community that we, as a national Government, must make them whole. I am not sure what that means. But it will not take us long to find out. In the meantime, I am very pleased that New Mexico's delegation is going to meet this afternoon. Hopefully, we will all be working together, the three House Members and the two Senators--Senator Bingaman and myself--in an effort to bring before the Senate and the House the appropriate remedies and the appropriate resources that are needed to do everything we can to make that community whole and make the individuals who have been subject to this terrible disaster as whole as possible. I have additional remarks, about another forest fire occurring in another part of New Mexico and about some of the heroes there. There were heroes in other fires, too. But I yield to Senator Bingaman for his comments, and then I will reclaim some time when he is finished. I thank the Senate and the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Bingaman for his remarks and his observations. Mr. President, I've visited Los Alamos countless times during my years of service in the Senate. I've been there for many celebrations, celebrations of their immense contributions that have helped to preserve our national security and maintain our scientific leadership. Well, I was there a few days ago, and it was no celebration. I witnessed incredible devastation caused by the massive forest fire that is ravaging the area. Thousands of beautiful trees have burned and smoke was rising everywhere. Hot winds were fanning new flames. Thousands of acres of forest were devastated. The lives of many people were shattered. Over 20,000 people had been evacuated, and were receiving shelter with friends and in public areas. Many homes lay in ruins, consumed by flames. These are homes of people who have dedicated their lives to preserving our precious freedoms. They are true patriots. It only added to my heavy heart to know that the fire was caused by an ill-advised ``prescribed burn'' in nearby Bandelier National Monument. In the face of the tragedy, I was immensely impressed with the superb emergency services that were being provided. The State Governor spent a long night in Los Alamos. The Red Cross set up shelters throughout the northern area. The Forest Service mobilized hot shot firefighting units and brought superb expertise, capabilities, leadership and coordination to this horrible situation. The FEMA Administrator was on site. The Secretary of Energy arrived with some of his key staff. The local emergency personnel were doing wonderful work, trying their best to safely cope with the immense challenge of protecting public safety during a complex evacuation, while also ensuring that none of the hazardous operations at the Laboratory caused additional concerns. The evacuation of Los Alamos took only about half the time anticipated, partly because they had recently practiced an evacuation drill. There have been many acts of heroism, in which emergency personnel performed critical functions. Many of the lab personnel who manned emergency posts lost their homes in the fire, yet they continued at their stations to ensure the safety of others. People from throughout New Mexico reached out to help their neighbors. Assistance to evacuees from Pojoaque, Espanola, Taos and Santa Fe, along with other communities throughout the State, has been heart warming. Community leaders of these areas, like Jake Villareal from Pojoaque Pueblo and Richard Lucero from Espanola, were some of the first to offer generous assistance. Given the state of the devastation, it's amazing that there has been no loss of life, or even serious injuries. The fire burned over bunkers full of high explosives--those bunkers provided the planned levels of protection and there were no accidents. Laboratory buildings, which house hazardous operations, remained secure, thanks in large part to years of careful planning. In fact, Laboratory leadership, under the direction of John Browne, deserves accolades for assuring that the Laboratory did not compound the fire-related crises, and bringing the laboratory through the events without significant loss of the facilities they require to accomplish their mission. In the near term, we need to care for the immense human dimensions of the tragedy. We must ensure that people have adequate shelter, that public health and safety are protected, that public services are rapidly restored, and that some semblance of normalcy can return to their lives. We need to provide assistance to people as they rebuild their lives and their houses. In the longer term, we need to ensure that the town regains its vitality, which is essential for our national Laboratory to return to full productivity. With the cessation of nuclear testing, the challenges facing that Laboratory are even greater than in years past. Now we've asked their staff to assure that our nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, and reliable--and do it without any nuclear tests. Our nation depends on that deterrent. We need these patriots to continue their work. While I'd like to list the groups and individuals that have worked together to mitigate this catastrophe, that's really an impossible task. I do want to especially thank President Clinton, FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt, and regional FEMA Director Buddy Young for their quick reaction to this devastating disaster. FEMA's assistance has and will continue to be critical in helping to make the community whole again. Up to this point, much of the focus has been on the tragedy facing the Laboratory and the communities of Los Alamos County, but there are additional dimensions to this horrible fire. It is still burning, and may threaten other communities. In fact, it could burn for months, as dry fuel in these mountain areas is plentiful. As we are speaking, the Abiquiu land grant has been voluntarily evacuated. Beautiful and sacred areas of the Santa Clara Pueblo are burning or are threatened. We must make the same assistance package being prepared for the Los Alamos community available in these other locations, if this fire damages property there. Last Wednesday, Governor Johnson requested that the President declare a state of emergency in New Mexico, and President Clinton signed that request within hours. The emergency declaration triggered immediate assistance to Los Alamos, as well as Sandoval and Santa Fe Counties, and Rio Arriba County was added soon thereafter. The emergency declaration provided for short-term assistancem including funds for things like: Food, water, medicine and other essential needs; shelters and emergency care; temporary housing assistance; emergency repairs and demolition; and emergency communications service and public transportation. Over the weekend, at Governor Johnson's request, the President declared parts of northern New Mexico to be a federal major disaster area. This triggers additional federal assistance from FEMA and other agencies for the following counties: Bernalillo, Cibola, Los Alamos, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos and Torrance. FEMA has only begun the process of assessing the damage, but the assistance will include funds to help individual families with rental housing, hotel/motel costs and other living expenses. Federal aid also will be available for county and city governments to help begin the process of rebuilding their infrastructure. Thankfully, it is estimated that 98 percent of the homes destroyed or damaged by the fire were insured. But, there are other effects this fire will have on the community, particularly the business community so heavily dependent on the Laboratory for its existence in Los Alamos. SBA will make available low interest loans to help small businesses pay for their property losses and to cover cash flow shortages or working capital deficiencies because of the fire's impact. FEMA has completed its initial assessment of the situation in northern New Mexico, and I have been assured that all appropriate federal agencies that can provide support will do so. FEMA will coordinate these activities and work closely with local officials to implement a comprehensive plan. No amount of money can replace many of the things which have been lost during this devastating tragedy, but all available federal resources will be brought to bear to do the best job we can. Over the next few weeks, we will begin to understand the types of assistance that will be required for the Laboratory and its staff to return to productive work. I stand ready to work with all of you to assure that those resources are provided swiftly and surely. Unfortunately, FEMA may be called upon to assist other communities in New Mexico, as my State is being devastated by a series of major fires. In the southern part of New Mexico, there are fires comparable in size to the Los Alamos fire. My heart goes out to those people as well, as they work to rebuild their lives. I've joined a call within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, together with Chairman Murkowski and Senator Bingaman, to carefully establish the chain of events that led to the horrific events associated with the Los Alamos fire. The Government Accounting Office has begun a detailed investigation. Even with the limited information we have now, it appears clear that major human errors caused this fire. We need to understand those errors and be sure they don't occur again. We may, for example, need to reexamine the procedures for evaluating the safety of ``controlled burns.'' It's also clear, even with the information we had last week, that the federal government is responsible for this disaster. Thousands of people were impacted by this mistake, and hundreds of those people have suffered major financial losses. Those folks are plenty angry, and they have every right to be furious. In Congress, we need to find ways to make those folks ``whole'' again, as quickly and efficiently as possible, with an absolute minimum of red tape. All our citizens owe a tremendous gratitude to the workers at Los Alamos. We won the Cold War because of their contributions. Today we enjoy our freedoms because of their dedication. We need their continued dedication to assure that those freedoms survive for our future generations. And they need our help to rebuild their lives and return to their vital missions. Mr. President, there are a lot of people to thank. I thank the President for acting expeditiously in declaring a national emergency. I thank James Lee Witt, the FEMA Administrator. He visited personally. He has put one of his best directors in charge. I thank Buddy Young from FEMA, who is out there setting up the appropriate centers. Obviously, at the forefront throughout this entire disaster has been our distinguished Governor, Governor Johnson. He probably knows more about it than any outsider today. He has spent untold numbers of hours, along with his wife, finding out what was going on, making sure things were coordinated and organized. I thank him in a very special way for all he has done. There are many others to thank whom I will forget to mention and they are very important. I think the people in this country ought to know this laboratory was very well organized. It is the center of some very significant activities that require expertise and require that we do things absolutely right. They had an evacuation plan. It was followed to a tee and, believe it or not, with just four roads out of the mountains, all of these people went to other parts of our State 20, 30, 40, 50 miles away. That occurred without anything other than a mild jam up of automobiles on a couple of occasions as they left. They are staying with friends and neighbors everywhere. Motels offered the people from Los Alamos some very excellent, reasonably priced, accommodations and were very generous in doing that. Now, people from Los Alamos are starting to move back and we anxiously await their return. I have a few comments for them. Without a doubt, it is the people who make this laboratory great. It is imperative that in our efforts to make this community whole, we do so with as much dispatch as humanly possible. Let it not be a long, dragged out, protracted effort to focus our attention and resources on what the people are entitled to and need, and let's get it done. We don't need any discouragement directed at those who are either new on the job, with great scientific prowess, or those who have been there a long time and are a part of the real nucleus of our nuclear and our deterrent capability. We don't need to discourage them. They should not be discouraged. We hope they come back and take up their jobs. Nobody should lose anything because of this fire in terms of remuneration, or pay, or the like. It is our responsibility. As I indicated in my remarks, we have acts of God where lightning and other things burn our forests, and we have people in recreation areas who make a mistake and start a fire. This one apparently was started by the U.S. Government, although another department of Government, the Park Service, under the Interior Department; that is different from the Department of Energy that manages this laboratory. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there are lawyers talking about trying to get our constituents there to sign up with them so they can get remuneration. I am very hopeful, as Senator Bingaman has indicated, and as Congressman Udall from the district where this laboratory lies, who spoke last night at an event. We ought to give our assistance in an effort to make people whole. We ought to do that quickly and make sure the people understand they don't have to go through protracted litigation and courts to get the compensation they are entitled to. We intend to make them whole. But obviously, there may be different definitions, depending upon what vantage point you take, as to what ``making them whole'' means. But wherever you can measure property losses such as a house, that which was in a house, personal property, automobiles, and the like which might have been damaged or destroyed, it is pretty easy. We need to put somebody in charge. We owe the people for what these destroyed assets were worth to them. This isn't a town way up in the mountains. It is not going to be easy to build 400 new residences, if that is what people choose to do. It will take some time. The Federal Government has a lot of resources that it puts to bear and focus in emergencies. They will all be there, and hopefully organized in such a manner so that people will not be frustrated, and we will get on with this. In the meantime, the process of controlled burns ought to be looked at thoroughly by Congress, but also the entire process of how we are maintaining our forests and our national parks in terms of trees that are knocked down; blighted areas where we have timber standing that is totally dry and dead; underbrush that is growing; pine needles that are piled up everywhere making a tinderbox out of some of our national monuments, some of our national parks, some of our forests, and some of the Bureau of Land Management land. We have to take a look to see what we should be doing about that. Should we leave that independent kind of situation waiting around for a fire of this magnitude or should we begin some orderly process of doing some things that will clean it up a bit and make it a little more safe? I opt for the latter. I hope there will be some detailed hearings about that because I believe something should be done. I understand the Senate is going into recess for the Republican and Democratic lunches. But I am not in charge of that time, unless leadership wants me to do something in that regard. I yield the floor and thank the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the manager of the bill, I have been asked to object to that. I object.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is a little town named Weed, NM, which was hit by this fire. Terrible damage was done. It is on the other side of the State in the southern section. There is a detailed Associated Press account by Chaka Ferguson that explains the details about that small town and what happened. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senate in advance for the generosity that it is going to show, as it always does for those who suffer a disaster in this country. I want to say to New Mexicans that the Senate won't let you down this time either. We are going to do what we have to do to organize it properly, put it in the right hands, and make all of you out there in New Mexico whole, rebuild that lab where it needs to be built, and make it safer where it ought to be safe so it can continue its marvelous work in behalf of peace and freedom as it has done for so many decades. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Ex-Fireman Saves Home From Scott Able Blaze retiree prevails over fire--one-man battle saves weed home (By Rene Romo) Weed.--The Scott Able Fire was raging on Agua Chiquita Road west of this tiny village, but 68-year-old Alton J. Posey was determined to protect his house, a two-story log cabin he built for his retirement. With an old firefighter's helmet perched on his head and his pants drenched with water, Posey used a garden hose to battle flare-ups. He managed to save his dream house, but at lest 15 other houses and structures burned to the ground a few hundred yards away in nearby Wayland Canyon and along Agua Chiquita on Thursday night. ``Everything at the end of the rainbow for me was at the bottom of his hill,'' Posey said Saturday of his 11-acre property, a preserve surrounded by blackened trees and incinerated homes. ``At 68 years old, you're too old to start again. And if a guy is determined and he knows he's right, you can't whip him.'' Firefighters on Sunday had the 20,717-acre blaze, which cut a swath about 20 miles wide from Scott Able Canyon east to the Sacramento and Weed area, about 50 percent contained, fire information officer Kris Fister said. The fire was believed to have been sparked by a downed power line in a 4-H camp about 16 miles south of Cloudcroft. Fed by wind gusts, the fire churned across the Sacramento Mountains in the Lincoln National Forest, covering nearly 20 miles Thursday night and Friday morning. Along Agua Chiquita, the fire left charred refrigerators and well pumps standing amid aluminum siding twisted like noodles. At some homes, trucks sat on their wheel rims because the tires were roasted away. Milder winds Saturday and Sunday limited the blaze mainly to ground fires and gave more than 300 firefighters from around the West a chance to build a perimeter and douse hot spots with five helicopters and six air tankers. According to a preliminary estimate, the Scott Able Fire destroyed 20 residences, 16 structures such as garages and sheds, and six automobiles. Among those who lost houses in Wayland Canyon were two of Posey's neighbors, Maggie Bailey and Weed postmaster Francis Visser. Posey allowed them to stay in his home while they figure out what to do next. Bailey moved to the area from Wisconsin two years ago with her truck-driver husband, who was on the road during the blaze. Bailey said she lost a motorhome, a small cabin and a motorboat. She managed to save two cars and her pets--a dog and two cats. ``I think I want to go back where there's more moisture,'' a dazed Bailey said Saturday evening ``What can you do? You just . . . do.'' Otero County sheriff's deputy Sgt. Jeff Farmer also lost his home. ``It's the little things you miss,'' said Farmer, who was working a roadblock leading into Weed off N.M. 24 on Saturday. He had been working almost nonstop since the fire erupted Thursday evening. ``Yesterday morning, I didn't own anything.'' Posey said ``it sounded like 10 trains'' when the blaze roared down the mountainside behind his house, consuming 80- foot-tall pine trees. The former Artesia firefighter thoroughly drenched his log cabin with a garden hose as the fire advanced Thursday. Later that evening, heat all around the house caused the building to issue a cloud of steam. From about 8 p.m. to 1 a.m., Posey, working frantically and alone, scrambled about his property dousing thumb-sized embers with a bucket. Flames burned a hole in the wall of a barn about 50 feet from his home before Posey extinguished the flare-up. Several times during the night, he said, he had to drop to the ground to gulp air. And once during the evening, a wild- eyed doe charged out of the burning forest and crashed into him. Posey said he refused three requests by local authorities to evacuate but sent his wife and two neighbors off Thursday evening. The goodbye became emotional when Posey told his wife of 47 years, Carol, to take his dog, a blue heeler named Ugly, with her. ``I was just just wondering if I would ever see him alive again.'' Carol Posey said Sunday, noting that she left her home with nothing but medicine and her pets. ``It was a scary time, I tell you what. You didn't have time to think. You didn't have time to do anything.'' Alton Posey recounted their goodbye: ``I said, `Don't you fret. This is the kind of hand I can play. I had a good supply of water, a good pressure pump, and my old coat.' '' Meanwhile, the 8,650-acre Cree Fire east of Ruidoso was 94 percent contained as of early Sunday, and a single helicopter doused hot spots. The fire is expected to be under control by Wednesday.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an article from the Albuquerque Journal that talks about a marvelous man, Alton J. Posey, 68 years old. Essentially, this 68-year-old retired man knew a lot about forests and mountains. That was his job. He went out to save his mountain house, which was his dream--a two-story log cabin in the mountains. He doused himself with water, took his water hose, and stayed there and kept that house from burning while things burned all around him. I ask unanimous consent that the story explaining his life and what he did be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the statement of managers accompanying a conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget contain allocations, consistent with the resolution, of total new budget authority and total outlays among each committee of the House and Senate. Allocations must cover the first year covered by the resolution and the sum of all years covered by the resolution. Unfortunately when we were preparing the statement of managers to accompany the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, (H. Con. Res. 290, H. Rpt. 106-577) the table indicating the five-year allocation to the committees of the Senate was inadvertently omitted. The table indicating the first year allocation was included as well as both the first and five-year allocation for the House committees. I have discussed this matter with the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, Senator Lautenberg, and we have agreed that we would insert the appropriate table here in the Record and ask unanimous consent that this table serve as the 5-year allocation under section 302 of the Budget Act as if it had been included in the statement of managers at the time the conference report was filed in the House of Representatives. I therefore make that request now of the Presiding Officer.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. As I indicated a while ago, I was planning to leave the floor. But my friend caught my attention when he, it seemed to me, wanted me to stay around. I have been around long enough to hear his kind remarks about me, and I thank him. Before I make a speech as I did tonight, I do try to understand what I am talking about. Sometimes I go back to my office after hearing something down here, or watching it, and say, I'll wait a week and really know something about this. But I think I do know something about this. I was a teacher once. I can tell you things have changed very little. You talk about the disparity in the preparation of children. The one year I taught I had one class in mathematics. One half of the class could not add or subtract, and the other half of the class was doing algebra. This was a long time ago. I was 22 years old, so that is how long ago. Sunday I will be 68. We still have the same thing. We have a difficult job for teachers. I think the Senator is correct. He is the one who offered the first bill to provide some choice instead of rigid, bound-up programs where, instead of walking together, we were kicking them to do it our way or not use our money. You were the starter, the charger of that, along with Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. A little bit of that expertise came about by accident out of the Budget Committee, on which you both serve. We had a task force, the Senator may recall. We asked the GAO--a very significant number of them worked with your staff and his staff on the Budget Committee and told you about the programs that were out there hanging around, but they wondered what they were doing. You provide the first opportunity to pull some together and collapse the rigidity. Right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. That is right.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to support override of the President's veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. This bill, S. 1287, under Senator Murkowski's leadership, provided the first opportunity for real progress on nuclear waste issues during the term of the Clinton Administration. With nuclear energy providing 22 percent of our Nation's electrical power, it is simply irresponsible for the Administration to continue to avoid all attempts at improving our handling of spent nuclear fuel. We must maintain nuclear energy as a viable energy option for our nation, and without concrete progress on nuclear waste, we will lose this part of our national energy supply. American consumers are still facing dramatically higher prices for gas and oil, driven in no small part by the failure of this Administration to develop a coherent energy policy. We can't afford to place 22 percent of our electrical supply in jeopardy, and then pretend to be surprised when energy prices skyrocket. These recent oil shocks have proven again the folly of over dependence on a single source of energy. They should have reinforced to the Administration that we need, more than ever before, a coherent energy policy that maintains a diverse energy supply portfolio. Nuclear energy is an important component of that portfolio. As I've noted in the last few months, our response to this latest oil price episode was to approach the OPEC countries, tin barrel in hand, asking them to increase the flow of oil and lower our prices. That only serves to make us more dependent on their oil and increase the impact of the next episode of restricted oil availability. Senator Murkowski incorporated a very large range of concessions into the current bill, concessions that met every one of the Administration's advertised concerns. Unfortunately, as we've seen before, this Administration is so determined to undercut the role of nuclear energy, that new objections were invented faster than concessions were granted. I find it interesting that the Administration is treating the two major electrical producers in the nation, coal and nuclear, in somewhat similar ways. These two sources together account for over 70 percent of our electricity. Yet in both cases, the Administration is not focusing resources on actions that would address remaining concerns with these two sources. Our dependence on foreign oil would be far more serious with loss of either of these energy sources. For coal, they should be increasing resources on clean coal technologies. For nuclear, they should be advancing timetables for addressing spent nuclear fuel. Neither is happening. I believe that consumer concerns relating to nuclear energy are changing, as more information about the successes of this energy source becomes better known. Just yesterday, I checked on an MSNBC Internet poll on the 20 year anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. In that poll, 80 percent of over 18,000 people responding said that they believe nuclear energy is safe, with 85 percent favoring licensing of new plants. I find it amazing how fear of anything in this country with ``nuclear'' in its title, like ``nuclear waste,'' seems to paralyze our ability to act decisively. Nuclear issues are immediately faced with immense political challenges. There are many great examples of how nuclear technologies impact our daily lives. Yet few of our citizens know enough about the benefits we've gained from harnessing the nucleus to support actions focused on reducing the remaining risks. Just one example that should be better understood and appreciated involves our nuclear navy. Their experience has important lessons for better understanding of these technologies. The Nautilus, our first nuclear powered submarine, was launched in 1954. Since then, the Navy has launched over 200 nuclear powered ships, and about 85 are currently in operation. Recently, the Navy was operating slightly over 100 reactors, about the same number as those operating in civilian power stations across the country. The Navy's safety record is exemplary. Our nuclear ships are welcomed into over 150 ports in over 50 countries. A 1999 review of their safety record was conducted by the General Accounting Office. That report stated: No significant accident--one resulting in fuel degradation--has ever occurred. For an Office like GAO, that identifies and publicizes problems with government programs, that's a pretty impressive statement. Our nuclear powered ships have traveled over 117 million miles without serious incidents. Further, the Navy commissioned 33 new reactors in the 1990s, that puts them ahead of civilian power by a score of 33 to zero. And Navy reactors have more than twice the operational hours of our civilian systems. The nuclear Navy story is a great American success story, one that is completely enabled by appropriate and careful use of nuclear power. Its contributed to the freedoms we so cherish. Nuclear energy is another great American success story, it is not a supply that we can afford to lose. It's a clean source of power, without release of greenhouse gases, with a superlative safety record over the last decade. The efficiency of nuclear plants has risen consistently and their operating costs are among the lowest of all energy sources. I've repeatedly emphasized that the United States must maintain nuclear energy as a viable option for future energy requirements. And without some near-term waste solution, like interim storage or an early receipt facility, we are killing this option. We may be depriving future generations of a reliable power source that they may desperately need. There is no excuse for the years that the issue of nuclear waste has been with us. Near-term credible solutions are not technically difficult. We absolutely must progress towards early receipt of spent fuel at a central location, at least faster than the 2010 estimates for opening Yucca Mountain that we now face or risk losing nuclear power in this country. Senator Murkowski's bill is a significant step toward breaking the deadlock which continues to threaten the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. I appreciate that he made some very tough decisions in crafting this bill that blends ideas from many sources to seek compromise in this difficult area. One concession involves tying the issuance of a license for the ``early receipt facility'' to construction authorization for the permanent repository. I'd much prefer that we simply moved ahead with interim storage. An interim storage facility can proceed on its own merits, quite independent of decisions surrounding a permanent repository. Such an interim storage facility could be operational well before the ``early receipt facility'' authorized in this act. There are absolutely no technical issues associated with interim storage in dry casks, other countries certainly use it. Nevertheless, in the interests of seeking a compromise on this issue, I supported this act's approach with the early receipt facility. I appreciate that Senator Murkowski included Title III in the new bill with my proposal to create a new DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. This new Office would organize a research program to explore new, improved national strategies for spent nuclear fuel. Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K., and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms. Now I'm well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically desirable now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore, it must only be done with careful attention to proliferation issues. But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for a future evaluation that may determine that we are too hasty today to treat this spent fuel as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing it as an energy resource for future generations. We do not have the knowledge today to make that decision. Title III establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide real data for such a future decision. This research program would have other benefits. We may want to reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition. Title III requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent fuel be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. As we do this, I'll encourage the Department to seek international cooperation. I know, based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are eager to join with us in an international study of spent fuel options. Title III requires that we focus on research programs that minimize proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires that we study the economic implications of each technology. With Title III, the United States will be prepared, some years in the future, to make the most intelligent decision regarding the future of nuclear energy as one of our major power sources. Maybe at that time, we'll have other better energy alternatives and decide that we can move away from nuclear power. Or we may find that we need nuclear energy to continue and even expand its current contribution to our nation's power grid. In any case, this research will provide the framework to guide Congress in these future decisions. Mr. President, I want to specifically discuss one of the compromises that Senator Murkowski developed. In my view, his largest compromise involves the choice between the Environmental Protection Agency or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set the radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain and for the ``early release facility.'' The NRC has the technical expertise to set these standards. Furthermore, the NRC is a non-political organization, in sharp contrast to the political nature of the EPA. We need unbiased technical knowledge in setting these standards, there should be no place for politics at all. The EPA has proposed a draft standard already, that has been widely criticized for its inconsistency and lack of scientific rigor--events that do not enhance their credibility for this role. I appreciate, however, the care that Senator Murkowski has demonstrated in providing the ultimate authority to the EPA. His new language requires both the NRC and the National Academy of Sciences to comment on the EPA's draft standard. And he provides a period of time, until mid-2001, for the EPA to assess concerns with their standard and issue a valid standard. These additions have the effect of providing a strong role for both the NRC and NAS to share their scientific knowledge with the EPA and help guide the EPA toward a credible standard. Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator Murkowski for his leadership in preparing this bill and in leading this over ride discussion. We need to overturn the President's veto, to ensure that we finally attain some movement in the nation's ability to deal with high level nuclear waste. Mr. President, I won't respond to the millirem argument with reference to New Mexico and WIPP. Frankly, I believe it is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I wish to talk about nuclear energy power and what is happening to the United States of America. I say to the Senators from Nevada, I compliment them. They have been able, for a number of years, to delay the United States of America from having an underground permanent repository, and today, once again, they are successful. I understand they are acting in what they think is the best interest of their State. They are, once again, going to preclude the United States from coming up with an interim storage facility for nuclear waste. Whatever the arguments have been, there is no science or engineering issue with reference to whether or not the United States of America can build, plan, and safely maintain an interim storage facility for high- level nuclear waste. Let me repeat. Nobody can, with any credibility, come to the floor of the Senate and say we cannot do that. In fact, we are doing so many things with reference to nuclear energy, with reference to radiation, that are more difficult than building an interim storage facility, a temporary storage facility for high-level waste for 25 or 50 years. In fact, the idea that we must find a permanent repository, one that will last for 20,000 or 30,000 years, for the fuel rods that come out of nuclear power reactors before we can proceed to take care of it for 50 or 100 years, borders on lunacy. It borders on standing reality on its head. The only possible reason could be that we don't believe we will build a permanent one if we build interim ones. But the truth is that it is not difficult; it is very safe once you have established it, and the only possible argument could be transportation. We should have a debate on the floor of the Senate on whether it is dangerous for the American people to transport nuclear waste from fuel sites across the United States--and every Senator knows where they are in their States--to interim facilities that we don't have today. We told the American people that the waste would move from their states. Nobody should conclude that it is unsafe to move it across the United States. We are moving more, and risking more dangerous things on a regular basis, across the highways of the United States, with utter and total safety, than would be involved in this. What is the issue? It seems to me that any time you are involved with radiation and anything nuclear, those who oppose it rely upon scaring the American people or their constituents, when the truth is that the United States of America gets 22 percent of its electricity from nuclear powerplants. Let me suggest that anybody who wants to test out what I am going to say have at it. That 22 percent of electricity produced in nuclear powerplants is the safest electricity produced in America. If you want to talk about risk of lives, injuries, health conditions, anything you would like, those are the safest sites producing electricity for the engine of American industry and for Americans living every day with computers built upon energy sources and electricity, and the like. I laud Senator Murkowski for his compromise legislation. Actually, I thought he might have even given away too much at one point, but looking at how things are going, he can't even get this passed. He has conceded a number of issues since this was originally proposed. What do we do? We continue our dependence upon oil, and now natural gas, for our electricity in the future. This administration, by vetoing this bill and other actions, does the following things: One, they don't spend money on coal technology that will clean that technology up. Two, they don't spend money on finding an interim facility for nuclear waste. And then, three, we go begging those in Saudi Arabia and in Central and South America to continue to provide us with reasonably priced oil because we have become hostage to their oil. Here we are, as a nation, worrying about oil supplies while the Democrats on that side get up and say this is not an issue; that the issues are Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Well, the issue about 7 weeks ago was skyrocketing oil prices, which caused skyrocketing gasoline prices. What if we cannot produce electricity as we need it in America? Think what would happen to America. Think what would happen in the United States if, in fact, we decided, as a nation, that we were not going to do anything with nuclear power, it is too dangerous, too scary, and we decided to shut it down. The United States would become a basket case soon. When the Democrats get up in rhythm with each of them, saying this is not an important issue, my friends, this is a big issue. This is one of the most important issues to America's future because it has been made the linchpin about which we discuss the future of improved nuclear power in the United States of America. I've become a strong advocate for nuclear power. I speak to it wherever I can. People listen. I think people believe we ought to continue with it. But we can't continue with it unless we decide what to do with the waste. Recently, my spirits were lifted a bit by a poll on MSNBC Internet. I know it is not scientific poll, but it is pretty interesting. It's being conducted on the 20th anniversary of Three Mile Island. People still hearken back to that event and say, ``Look at what happened with nuclear power.'' Well, actually nothing happened. There was a leak. Nobody got hurt, and nothing happened. Over 18,000 people responded on that MSNBC Internet poll, and 80 percent believe nuclear energy is safe. Eighty-five percent favor licensing power plants in the future for nuclear power. Right now, today, the U.S. Navy has slightly over 100 nuclear reactors with partially spent fuel rods in the power plant. Those 100 nuclear power plants are sailing the oceans and the seas of the world in the hulls of submarines, battleships, and aircraft carriers. Some have two power plants in them--two complete nuclear reactors with the fuel rods that we are down here talking about and we don't know what to do with. They are on ships. Those ships are welcomed in almost every seaport in the world, except New Zealand because it had some argument about it years ago. Imagine, all the big ports in America welcoming U.S. Navy ships into their waters and their harbors. What do they have in them? Nuclear power plants with their fuel rods. Why do they let them in? Why don't they say that is terrible, as we are saying here on the floor, and people are going to get hurt? Because they have been audited, and reaudited. The General Accounting Office has looked at it and concluded, like no other study, that U.S. Navy ships are totally safe, never having had an accident since the Nautilus was launched in 1954. We are here today arguing about whether we can safely take spent fuel rods--not in a pond of water where, if something happens, it goes everywhere. But we are talking about whether we can haul it down the road or highway and take it somewhere. It is on all the oceans of the world, and nobody is even talking about it. Then we are arguing about, once you get it there, it is just too scary to think of storing it there. France has about 80 percent of its energy in nuclear. They get the benefits of what I am bringing to the surface now--there is no air pollution to speak of in France because nuclear power does not create the air pollution we are worried about with reference to global warming. The United States of America runs around the world negotiating how to clean our air so we will not have global warming. And here we're talking about the principal source of electricity that would be totally clean. We scare our people to death about moving fuel rods down a highway when the oceans and seas of the world have nuclear power plants floating under water and on top of the water by virtue of 100 U.S. Navy ships at sea. Actually, France, which I just described, does not today have a permanent repository. You heard the argument, fellow Senators, and those listening, that we don't want to have interim storage until we have a permanent repository for certain. I think France is pretty concerned about the health and safety of their constituents, the French people. They aren't building underground repositories yet because they are very satisfied with having interim, temporary storage. Sooner perhaps than later, they will find a way to use that spent fuel, which is highly radiated, either to produce more energy, or they will break it into its components and make sure they can safely put it somewhere. There is no question in this Senator's mind, that this is a big issue. This is America trying to turn science, engineering, and safety on its head to try to make fear where there is no reality of fear, to try to conclude that this great Nation cannot take care of the nuclear waste coming out of our powerplants with the end product being no more nuclear power. What a shame, if that happened in the Nation that started it, that led it, that built the safest reactors in the world--safer than 20 or 30 coal-burning, electricity-generating plants, or any kind of plant. What if we as a matter of fact kill nuclear power while the rest of the world proceeds to use it in China, Japan, Europe? We're doing that by not finding a way to do the easiest part of the fuel cycle, which is to temporarily put spent fuel somewhere in a repository of interim measure? It would appear to me that, innocently or intentionally, those who oppose it are failing to recognize the significance of the future of nuclear energy and nuclear power for America and for a world that wants to be clean and wants to have growth and prosperity without global warming. From my standpoint, not only do I refute the argument that this is not important, that there are other issues more important. I want to say that the President is making a very big mistake for America's future by vetoing this compromise bill. The Congress passed it in both bodies overwhelmingly. Now, because of his veto ban, we need 66 votes in the Senate. That is probably too hard to do for an issue such as this. But sooner or later, a President will sign a bill. I am hoping it is sooner. Obviously, we shouldn't try it again with the current President because it won't fly. But I personally believe the day will come soon when we will have the repository, wherever it is, and we will not come to the floor of the Senate and hearken back to the numerous times we have denied the validity and credibility of the fact that it can be easily and safely transported and easily and safely put in 30- to 50- year interim repositories. I yield the floor. I thank the Senate for listening.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on May 2, 2000, from 10 a.m.-1 p.m., in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 2 p.m., in 226 Dirksen.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 2, 10 a.m., Hearing Room (SD- 406), to examine successful State environmental programs.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 2350, Duchesne City Water Rights Conveyance Act and S. 2351, Shivwits Band of the Paiute Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act. The hearing will be held in the committee room, 485 Russell Senate Building.