Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 204 of H. Con. Res. 68 (the FY2000 Budget Resolution) permits the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and outlays to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, provided certain conditions are met. Pursuant to section 204, I hereby submit the following revisions to H. Con. Res. 68: [Dollars in millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee: FY2000 Budget Authority..................................... $10,843 FY2000 Outlays.............................................. 7,940 FY2000-2004 Budget Authority................................ 40,012 FY2000-2004 Outlays......................................... 24,704 FY2000-2009 Budget Authority................................ 75,410 FY2000-2009 Outlays......................................... 45,523 Adjustments: FY2000 Budget Authority..................................... ........ FY2000 Outlays.............................................. ........ FY2000-2004 Budget Authority................................ 5,997 FY2000-2004 Outlays......................................... 5,227 FY2000-2009 Budget Authority................................ 5,637 FY2000-2009 Outlays......................................... 5,667 Revised Allocation to Senate Agriculture Committee: FY2000 Budget Authority..................................... 10,843 FY2000 Outlays.............................................. 7,940 FY2000-2004 Budget Authority................................ 46,009 FY2000-2004 Outlays......................................... 29,931 FY2000-2009 Budget Authority................................ 81,047 FY2000-2009 Outlays......................................... 51,190 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, after months of negotiation, we have reached an agreement and completed work on the Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century, the so-called AIR-21. AIR-21 is a fair bill. It reflects a compromise on many of my concerns about the budgetary treatment of our federal aviation accounts. It also reflects some of my commitments, one of which is to increase investment in aviation programs. I am a strong proponent of safety, and this bill increases funding for safety programs, including funds for air traffic control modernization. In addition, and very important to the State of New Mexico, many of the programs within this bill focus on and support small or rural airports. Finally, each of these accomplishments are realized while budgetary discipline is maintained. In 2001, a total of $12.7 billion is authorized for aviation programs. This represents an increase in budget resources of $2.7 billion over the 2000 levels. This is extremely generous to the FAA. In fact, it exceeds the President's 2001 budget request by $1.5 billion. Over the 2001 through 2003 time period, AIR-21 authorizes nearly $40 billion. Before I outline the budgetary compromise, I would like to thank all the Conferees--I especially appreciate the work and support of Senators Stevens, Gorton, Grassley, Burns, Lott, and Lautenberg on the budget issue. In addition, I applaud the leadership that Senators Gorton, Lott, and McCain took on this bill. One very controversial issue had to do with the correct budgetary treatment for aviation programs. The provision contained in AIR-21 represents a compromise--both sides had to come together for this deal. Similar to my offer last fall, AIR-21 guarantees annual funding from the Airports and Airways Trust Fund equal to the annual receipts deposited into the Trust Fund plus annual interest credited to the Trust Fund, as estimated in the President's budget. Based on the President's FY 2001 Budget, $10.5 billion will be appropriated from the Trust Fund in 2001 for aviation programs. In addition, just over $2 billion can be provided from the general fund. For 2001 through 2003, over $33 billion will be guaranteed from the trust fund for aviation programs, and more than $6 billion can be provided from the general fund. Further, the budget compromise provides that the Trust Funds will first be available to fund the capital accounts--for airport improvement program grants and facilities and equipment, including the air traffic control modernization programs. Before I finish, let me take one minute to discuss what this bill doesn't do. AIR-21 does not take the Airports and Airways Trust Fund off-budget. AIR-21 does not establish a budgetary firewall between aviation programs and other discretionary programs. Further, it does not lock-down general fund tax receipts for aviation programs. Finally, it does not put FAA funding on auto-pilot and take the appropriators out of the process. In this way, budgetary discipline has prevailed and appropriate congressional oversight is maintained. This is good policy for the American people and the flying public. Finally, this bill contains essentially, for the next three years, a Federal mechanism not entirely unlike what has existed since the Airports and Airways Trust Fund was established in 1972. As we move into this new century, it may be that this funding mechanism and the current government structure is not the most efficient or effective way to provide the investments and services for this industry in the future. For example, at least 16 countries have taken action to respond to the pressures that increasing enplanements have had on a system already stressed by capacity constraints and increases in and longer delays. These countries realized something that was made clear in a joint Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing on February 3--that increased funding levels will not solve the problems of our outdated air traffic control system and will not make the system efficient. Recognizing this, these countries have fundamentally reformed and restructured their air traffic control systems. Most recently Canada created a very successful nonprofit, private air traffic control corporation sustained by user fees. Reformed air traffic control systems have been successful. They have brought about major gains in efficiency, reduced flight delays, reductions in operating costs, and progress in technological upgrades. All of this was accomplished without compromising safety. Although this bill provides funding for FAA for three years, it is my hope that we will continue to seriously evaluate and consider whether services can more effectively and efficiently be delivered with a change in structure--so that the gains realized in Canada, Britain, Germany, Switzerland, and New Zealand can be achieved in the United States.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements of Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through March 6, 2000. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2000 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 68). The budget resolution figures incorporate revisions submitted to the Senate to reflect funding for emergency requirements, disability reviews, adoption assistance, the earned income tax credit initiative, and arrearages for international organizations, peacekeeping, and multilateral banks. The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $10.3 billion in budget authority and below the budget resolution by $2.3 billion in outlays. Current level is $17.8 billion above the revenue floor in 2000. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $20.6 billion, which is $5.7 billion below the maximum deficit amount for 2000 of $26.3 billion. Since my last report, dated February 1, 2000, the Congress has cleared for the President's signature the Omnibus Parks Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (H.R. 149). This action has changed the current level of budget authority and outlays. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 7, 2000. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report for fiscal year 2000 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 2000 budget and is current through March 6, 2000. This report is submitted under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. The budget resolution figures incorporate revisions submitted to the Senate to reflect funding for emergency requirements, disability reviews, adoption assistance, the earned income tax credit initiative, and arrearages for international organizations, peacekeeping, and multilateral banks. These revisions are required by section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. Since my last report, dated January 27, 2000, the Congress has cleared for the President's signature the Omnibus Parks Technical Corrections Act of 1999 (H.R. 149). This action has changed the current level of budget authority and outlays. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosures.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I intend to vote to confirm Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Paez has waited four years for this vote, and I believe that the time has come for the Senate to perform its constitutional duty to advise and consent on this nomination. I have reviewed Judge Paez's record, including some of the issues which have proven controversial over the last four years, and am satisfied that he has adequately responded to the concerns raised by some in this body about his fitness to serve on the Ninth Circuit. Particularly, Judge Paez has expressed his regret about commenting publicly about two California ballot initiatives while he served on the federal bench. Affirmative action and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants are two issues which inspire passion in many people on both sides of the political aisle. While I understand, but do not necessarily agree with Judge Paez's comments and concerns about these two initiatives, I think he also knows that he made a mistake. That mistake should not prevent his elevation to the appellate court. I also have reviewed several of Judge Paez's more controversial opinions. While I cannot say that I agree with some of his legal conclusions, I do believe that he has a well-deserved, bi-partisan reputation for fairness, and for being a thoughtful, scholarly jurist. His fifteen years as a municipal and federal district court judge will serve him well on the Ninth Circuit. Mr. President, Judge Paez has earned bi-partisan support from a variety of sources. Not only is he universally supported by the Hispanic community, but he also has received the endorsement of law enforcement officials, district attorneys and the business trial bar in California. I believe we have taken enough time to study Judge Paez's record on and off the bench. Despite the fact that Judge Paez and I come from opposite ideological positions, I am ready to join a majority of this body, Democrats and Republicans, in support of his confirmation. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Larry Ahrens, a man who has become an institution in Albuquerque. This week he celebrates his 20th anniversary as morning host on 770 KOB, one of the best-known radio stations in New Mexico. Larry's radio career has spanned much of my own Senate career, and we have developed a wonderful friendship and working relationship over the past two decades. There is something comforting about turning on the radio and hearing the same recognizable voice welcoming the day. For thousands of New Mexicans, Larry has become that reassuring deliverer of news, commentary and other interesting and entertaining information. It hardly seems like 20 years have lapsed since Larry first addressed KOB listeners and endeared himself to us with his level-headed take on life in Albuquerque and the Land of Enchantment. Larry Ahrens took over New Mexico's most high-profile radio job as morning host on 770 KOB on March 3, 1980. But he began his career in his native southern California. A job offer in Roswell brought Larry to the New Mexico airwaves in late 1972. Apparently his talent was clear even then, as an El Paso station owner traveling through Roswell heard Larry on the air and ended up offering him a job. Ahrens spent two and a half years in El Paso before coming back to New Mexico to begin his long run as host of KOB's morning show. Over the years, I've observed that a lot of radio personalities come and go. Larry has been a steady and reliable fixture on KOB, which I attribute to the fact that his show mirrors the community. He has served New Mexico with integrity, opening his mike to air the views of the day--whether they come from young mothers on Albuquerque's West Side, retirees in the Heights, or even the occasional politician. Part of Larry's appeal is linked to the fact that his job is more than sharing with New Mexicans between 5:30 and 10:00 a.m. Like so many others, I appreciate Larry as an active member of the community and a key supporter of important civic causes. One example is Larry's annual golf tournament for the University of New Mexico's academic scholarship program, now in its 18th year. He has raised more than $600,000 to give scores of New Mexico students an opportunity to continue their education. Larry and the morning show he hosts play a welcome role in the day- to-day lives of many New Mexicans. Where once I could only enjoy Larry's broadcasts when in New Mexico, I am pleased that technology is now so advanced that I can listen to his show live on the Internet. It's almost like being home. Times may have changed since Larry first took to the airwaves, but his presence has remained constant for 20 years. Today, I think it would be fair to say Larry reigns as the premiere morning show host in Albuquerque. Mr. President, I congratulate Larry Ahrens on this career milestone, and salute his contributions to New Mexico throughout his impressive career. Finally, I add my voice to those thousands and thousands of New Mexicans who look forward to tuning into the radio to hear Larry's show for years to come.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased today that the Senate has confirmed New Mexican Sylvia Baca for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management. I have been working hard to see this day, and I am glad the Senate has finally confirmed this worthy individual. Ms. Baca is a native New Mexican who has worked for the Department of Interior for over four years, and has been Acting Assistant Secretary since November of 1998. Since January of 1995, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management has direct supervisory responsibility for three principal bureaus of the Department of the Interior: The Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. In 1997, she served as Acting Director for the Bureau of Land Management. in such capacity, she was responsible for direct management of 10,000 employees, a budget of $1.2 billion, and the maintenance of 270 million acres of public lands and 570 million acres of subsurface minerals. Ms. Baca previously served the state of New Mexico with distinction as a Senior Fiscal Analyst for the state Legislative Finance Committee for five years. Ms. Baca served as Director of Finance and Management for the City of Albuquerque immediately before leaving for Washington, D.C. Some of you may know that I served as what was then the equivalent of Mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city. I can assert that administering the operating budget and administering city employees is a big job. Sylvia Baca has a tremendous tie to the land. Sylvia, whose New Mexico ranching family history dates back to Spanish colonial times, is one of the many distinguished New Mexicans who have served the Interior Department. I am sure she will continue to work with distinction and serve well managing our federal public lands. Based upon her experience and commitment, I trust she will do a good job for the people of the United States. She has demonstrated that she has the administrative skills and experience needed to do this job well.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by my colleagues Jeff Bingaman and Max Baucus in introducing legislation to preserve precious dollars allocated by the Congress and the President for construction of Indian reservation roads. There is no doubt that the Indian reservation road system is the poorest in our nation, and every federal dollar allocated for improving this situation should be directed to our nation's Indian reservations. The lack of adequate roads and bridges is a chronic problem on Indian reservations, where unemployment averages 35 percent and more than half of American Indian live in hard poverty. Since 1982, when my Senate amendment added Indian roads to our federal highway trust fund accounts, all funds allocated for Indian roads have been used for that purpose. In ISTEA, which preceeded the enactment of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program reached a level of $191 million per year. Many of us in Congress worked hard to increase this IRR funding to $225 million in the first year of TEA-21 (FY 1998), and $275 million each year thereafter, through FY 2003. Unfortunately, a little noticed provision for Federal Lands Highways, placing an ``obligation limitation'' on the IRR program, has resulted in the transfer of funds intended for Indian reservations to be transferred to the 50 states. In FY 1998, the amount deducted for this transfer to states from the IRR program was $24.2 million. In FY 1999, it was $31.7 million; and in FY 2000, the obligation limitation resulted in a loss of $34.9 million that could have been used for Indian reservation road building. In all previous enacting legislation since 1982, federal funds intended for IRR programs have been used for IRR purposes. Only in TEA- 21 was this changed due to the application of the obligation limitation to Federal Lands Highways and the IRR program. Our bill will simply exclude the IRR program from this annual deduction that has totaled, in the past three years, more than $90 million. This money, while helpful to many states, is more badly needed on Indian reservations and should be preserved for that purpose. By excluding the IRR program from this obligation limitation provision, we will be increasing federal funds for Indian roads without increasing the cost of the total program. We will be focusing the funds for Indian roads on Indian roads, as we have intended since the IRR program first became part of our federal highway trust fund in 1982. I urge my colleagues to join us in redirecting funds intended for Indian road construction to be dedicated to that purpose.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. This chart shows the various entitlement spendings. It is over 55 percent of all Federal spending today. Three-quarters of it is just three programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Let's move on to the Growth in Entitlements and Mandatories. Many of us are of the impression that it is the entitlement programs that are out of control. I admit, looking at this chart, one would see where it wasn't too long ago when they were out of control. Let's take 1970-75. The growth was 18.5 percent nominal growth. In 1980-85, it was 9, and in 1985-90, it was 6.9. In 1990-95, it was 5.5. Here we are in 1995- 2000, in entitlement programs, 4.5 percent nominal and, without inflation, the growth was 2.6 percent. If we can continue growth in this manner, which is principally predicated upon controlling the costs of health care, which the Government pays for partially or totally, we can keep our government under control and the costs can continue to come down. National defense is something we ought to be concerned about because we have thrown some numbers around and some percentages. The facts are before us, and they don't look too good. The truth is, since the 1985- 90 era, everything since that time has been no growth in defense rather than growth. If you are looking at the chart turned upside down, when it comes to the last decade, defense spending starts to come out on the negative side, meaning year after year the outlays for defense have gone down rather than up, and these are the numbers. We are doing a little better in the 5 years of 1995-2000 than we did in 1990-95, but it is clear that if, in fact, we think we have been really increasing defense in terms of outlays, as we finally get them accounted for, it is obvious we have a long way to go if we are going to say we have increased defense spending. I am not saying we must. I am merely giving some facts as they show up here. In summary, the data suggests to me that we have been successful in controlling the rate of Federal spending. And while we must continue to be vigilant and very careful, in this time of projected budget surpluses, to avoid returning to an era of expansive Government spending, I do not think we should dismiss what these charts show. We have been successful in controlling Government spending, and we have been most successful in the last decade, very successful in the last 5 years. There are many institutions, entities, and people who can take some credit for what has happened to the American economy, but I believe it is fair to say that the Budget Committee of the Senate, not always under my chairmanship but under the chairmanship of others, has been part of a decade of tremendous pressure to reduce the expenditures of Government and thus create a surplus. If the surplus is good--and, frankly, it looks as if the American people have understood loud and clear that the debt is not good. I would assume if the debt is not good, they must think surpluses are good. Indeed, we do. Much of the surplus is going to that accumulated debt. As a matter of fact, I close by saying, while the two parties and the President disagree on many things, it is good for America that we have agreed on one thing; that is, the Social Security surplus is going to the Social Security trust fund, not into the general coffers of Government to be spent. That alone will dramatically reduce the debt we owe to the public. As a matter of fact, if we continue for the next decade to apply the Social Security surpluses, which I am rather confident will continue to occur, then we will have in a decade reduced the debt of the American people by somewhere around 70 percent, which is not very shabby, if you talk about one decade, one group of people reducing the debt that much. I thank the Senate for permitting me to speak. I will come to the floor at a later time and express why I am convinced the surpluses are for real and that, as a matter of fact, they are apt to be more rather than less over the next decade because of what is happening in the American economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to spend a little time talking about what has transpired with the U.S. budget over the last 35 years, and I will focus mostly on the last 5 years. I think everyone knows that next month we begin the process of producing a congressional budget plan for the fiscal year that begins this coming October. The Senate Budget Committee, which I have been honored to chair, will complete its hearings next week on the President's budget which was submitted to Congress earlier this month. Before we begin the task of producing that budget blueprint, I thought it might be of interest to some of my colleagues and some of those who might be watching to briefly review some facts surrounding the Federal budget. One can provide different interpretations of numbers, but a number is a very stubborn thing. It is what it is. Using the help of some charts, I will provide a very brief historical overview of the Federal budget today. Chart No. 1 is the total budget surplus and deficit over the last 30 years. After nearly 30 years of Federal deficit spending--and my colleagues can see the surplus/deficit excluding Social Security is in green and the total budget surplus is in red. The green, as one can see, starting back in 1965 and going all the way to 1998, is constantly below the line, meaning we have been in deficit for that whole period of time. We finally reported a balanced budget, under the unified budget process in 1998, of nearly $70 billion. Last year, in 1999, we once again successfully achieved a unified budget surplus of $125 billion. But more importantly--noting the green line on this chart--we will be able to balance the budget not counting the Social Security surplus. The red line is the total budget surplus and the green is Social Security balances. Here is the way the budget goes. We now have a surplus above zero in both the Social Security and in the non-Social Security accounts of our Government. Last year, we actually achieved a surplus--not very much-- of $1 billion, and certainly that is substantially better than when we were approaching $300 billion in deficits. For the current fiscal year, we expect a surplus of $176 billion, and, of that, nearly $23 billion excludes the Social Security moneys, meaning we have some money left over in surplus after we put all the money in the Social Security trust fund that is required by law. Projections for the near future remain positive. Of course, depending on what policies we enact relating to taxes or spending, the Social Security surpluses will continue to accumulate over the next decade, and the rest of Government also is expected and projected to see surpluses as far as the eye can see. By the year 2005, the Congressional Budget Office expects the surplus to be between $270 billion and $300 billion. One thing that this job has taught me is to be very careful in statements about the long term. I could spend some time suggesting that these long-term surpluses are very reliable and credible, but I will do that at another time. Today, instead of statements about the long term, what I want to do is talk about--rather than pontificating about the future and what we might expect--about what has passed, just so there will be an understanding of whether or not Congress and the Senate and the Budget Committee and the appropriators and everybody in this body ought to be proud of what we have accomplished in terms of controlling the spending of our National Government. So here is chart No. 2. It has a lot of things on it. I just put it up because it shows, in five intervals over the last 30 years, the major components of the budget. We can clearly see that total Federal spending has increased, to where this year the Federal Government is likely to spend $1.8 trillion. In terms of the totality of the budget--in all of its components: Military, entitlements, the 13 appropriations bills--it has been going up every year. Now we are at about $1.8 trillion. That is an interesting number because if there is a $4 trillion surplus--just to compare--that means we will have more than 2 full years of the Federal budget in surplus during the next decade. That is a rather profound and major change in things over the past 35 years. The country has grown over the last 30 years, and it has grown faster than Government spending. So while we reached a peak of nearly 23 percent of our gross domestic product in 1985, today it has declined almost 5 full percent; that is, we are now at 18.5 percent of our gross domestic product in the total spending of the American Government, including interest on the debt, entitlements, Social Security, and 13 appropriations bills--and, obviously, one of those is the defense bill. This bar chart points out a phenomenon of which I think we are all aware. Let's just look at it for 1 minute. Entitlement spending today represents 55 percent of all Federal spending. If we add paying the interest on our national debt as another entitlement--and it might be that, so let's add it in--then 77 percent of what we spend every year is either mandatory spending or an entitlement. I did not go back in history to equate the percentages under other Presidents, but suffice it to say, not too long ago, in the era of, let's say, President Kennedy's tenure, clearly, about 40 percent of the entire Federal budget was entitlements; and now we are up to 77 percent. Let's look at the third chart: Growth in Total Outlays. This is very important. For those who wonder about how poorly we do or how well we do when we finally finish all our work--it might not look pretty; it may take too long; there may be a lot of scuffling on the appropriations bills--I would like very much to make sure we all take a good, careful look at this chart and see what we have really been doing that has contributed to the great fiscal policy of this country and to our position today of low interest rates and sustained economic growth. This is a very dramatic chart. It is very simple but very dramatic. The blue on the chart is what is called nominal growth, and the red is real growth. The nominal growth includes inflation, plus the growth beyond inflation. It is very interesting what we have done. Because we think it makes the most sense, we have gone back to 1965 and done this on 5-year intervals. So we have taken 5-year intervals and then taken the average for that 5-year interval. It is rather dramatic to see what is shown on the chart, without any explanation--the dramatic reduction in the percentage of growth in actual total outlays year after year. It was not long ago we were talking about deficits as far as the eye could see. Now, as this chart shows, as the reality of the years 1995 through 2000 has become true, we are beginning to see rather large surpluses. I might add, by way of taxes--with which I do not think we did much in these charts--even though taxes, for certain Americans, may be lower than 15 or 20 years ago, but the percent of our gross domestic product that goes to taxes is the highest since the end of the Second World War. So it is obvious, if your taxes are the highest and your growth in Government is the lowest, you begin to develop a rather good surplus. It is kind of easy to see that much of that surplus is because we are taxing the American people at a higher percent of our total production than we ever have since the Second World War when we had all kinds of taxes. Let's just look at this chart and take a couple of years. Growing at an annual rate of nearly 12.2 percent in the late 1970s, the total Government spending right now that we can tell you already occurred--as I said in my opening remarks, we are not predicting. Numbers that are behind us are hard to throw away. For the years 1995 to 2000, the total amount of growth in our Government, including appropriated accounts, is 3.1 percent; and of that, the real growth--that is, noninflationary growth--is 1.3 percent. Just compare that quickly with other periods of time shown on the chart. Pick any interval you like. From 1980 to 1985, the nominal growth was 9.9 percent, the real growth was 3.6 percent--almost three times as much in real growth as it was from 1995 to the year 2000. If today I sound as if I am trying to convince somebody of something, I address this to a number of Senators because there are some who say we are overspending everywhere and some who say the appropriated accounts are out of control. My friend, if they are out of control when they are part of a Government growth that is 1.3 percent in real growth, what were they when it was 5.8 percent? It was unexplainable. There is no word for it. If we are out of control now--and for those who are interested, the years 1990 to 1995 were not too shabby either. In fact, from 1990 to 1995, it was 1 percent real growth and 3.9 percent for a combination of real growth and inflation. That is just slightly higher in its totality than the period from 1995 to 2000. I remind Senators that for the period 1995 to 2000--the occupant of the Chair knows this; Senator Hollings knows this--we had a lot of emergency money we put in. We had an agricultural emergency 3 years in a row. We had some military emergencies where we got into wars, and we had not funded them, so we put them in as emergencies. They can be whatever you want, but when the year is finished they are part of the total outlays. If, in fact, you allocated the money, and put it in an appropriations bill, it would eventually be spent, whether it was an emergency or whatever, and that is the reason we talk about total outlays. The fourth chart only shows the red, which depicts real growth. For some people--not me at this point; I am not sure everything should increase by the rate of inflation every year--but some people think that should be the policy of our Government. What we are looking at here in each of these years is: What was the real outlay growth, on average, over the 5-year intervals, meaning without inflation? It is pretty simple. If we took the 35-year average, and we drew a line--looking at the years 1965 to 1970, it was almost 6 percent--but the average for the 35 years is 3.1 percent. Looking at the last decade, real growth for the years 1990 to 1995 was 1 percent; from 1995 to 2000, it was 1.3 percent. Frankly, somebody did something right. If we are talking about restraining expenditures of Government so as to produce a fiscal policy that puts us in balance and ultimately creates a surplus--I know my dear friend, Senator Hollings, is here and his and my definition of ``surplus'' may differ, but I think anybody who looked at this would say we are surely moving in a direction different from what we did for most of the last 35 years. In terms of how much we are letting Government grow, the fifth chart shows major components of the entitlements and other mandatory programs. The 35-year average annual rate of growth of Government spending has been about 3.1 percent.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the status of the legislation at this time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before us. This legislation is only one of many important steps required to counter the greatest threat to U.S. security in this era--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I am not being an alarmist. I am being a realist. The proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological technologies and the means to deliver them present a growing threat to U.S. security. This is a threat which we have only begun to address in the changed security environment of the 21st century. Mr. President, I would like to mention three important aspects of the problem as stated by George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence early in February. First, Russia and China no longer represent the only missile threat to the United States. The missile threat to U.S. interests and forces from other nations is here and now. Second, South Asian nations are establishing doctrine and tactics for the use of their missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan steadily intensifies. The potential for miscalculation, misperception and escalation of the conflict in Kashmir is high. Third, the countries we previously considered technology importers are now assuming roles as ``secondary suppliers.'' This compounds the proliferation problem and confounds our ability to control or defend against it. As outlined in the most recent Intelligence Community assessment of Ballistic Missile Threats, by the year 2015 the U.S. will not only face the ongoing challenges of large-scale missile threats from China and Russia. U.S. cities will also confront a real threat from other actors--North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq. One must mention that Intelligence Community's estimate excludes the possibility of social or political changes in those countries that would change the calculus. Also, the missile arsenals of these nations would be much smaller, limited to smaller payloads, and less reliable than Chinese or Russian capabilities. At the same time, these remain a lethal and less predictable threat. Acute accuracy is not required for missiles tipped with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads. And the U.S. cannot bank on rational actions from dictators like Saddam Hussein or Kim Chong-il. At the same time that the threat increases, global changes make non- proliferation efforts even more difficult. Three specific aspects in the current international security environment will impede U.S. efforts to control or minimize this threat. First, Russia--hard currency starved and heavily indebted--is a willing merchant--most notably of conventional defense items, but the U.S. Russian sales are not limited to this. This legislation attempts to address this aspect through creating incentives for the Russian government and others to implement and enforce stricter export controls on private actors or institutes in their dealings with Iran. Second, North Korea and their No-Dong missile sales are altering strategic balances in the Middle East and Asia. While the administration's new strategy for engagement with North Korea may retard developments that require testing, such as reliability of long- range missiles, many suspect that the North Korean missile program continues and that its role as a supplier of medium-range missile technology has not been addressed. Third, technology advances and rapid international economic integration alter and confuse the means by which the United States can control military advances of other nations. The list of potentially threatening dual-use technologies continues to grow. This is especially true of information technologies--command, control, communication, and information technologies, C-31, now comprise about 75 percent of a modern military's capability. But potential dual use is also true of nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technologies. The proliferation threat will remain our Nation's No. 1 security challenge in the 21st century. At the same time, the United States will be most vulnerable to this threat. As George Tenet, our head of the CIA, also noted, U.S. hegemony has become a lightning rod for the disaffected. As Americans enjoy unprecedented prosperity, many in the world remain disaffected. These disaffected represent a group who resent our power and our prosperity. Our success fuels the intensity of their claims and their feelings. The same forces aligned against our nonproliferation objectives apply to terrorist organizations as well, whether state sponsored or not. A disaffected Iran, despite some moderating trends, remains an active state supporter of terrorism. Terrorist groups will continue to increase their destructive or their potential for disruption through rapidly evolving and spreading technologies. Again, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents offer cheap means to achieve highly lethal terror. Acquisition of information technology may not only greatly improve a terrorist group's means for organization and coordination and attack, these technologies offer increasing potential for massive, possibly crippling, disruption of U.S. information infrastructure. This legislation is a small step, but a good one, in addressing the problem of supplying WMD technologies to Iran. But we have much more work to do. We must prevent, when prevention is possible, such as providing safeguards for nuclear materials in Russia and controlling access to technology and know-how as best we can and in as many cases as we can. We must also find the most effective means to defend against such threats, such as training and equipping policemen and firemen to respond to these attacks and pursuing the best technological solutions to defend against them. I believe the United States is not pursuing with sufficient vigor the means of greatest potential against missile threats. For example, directed energy technologies represent the next revolutionary step in military technologies. Laser technologies in particular dramatically alter U.S. potential to counter a missile attack. Missile defense at the speed of light will improve effectiveness and efficiency, substantially reducing the cost-per-kill ratios. Despite this understanding, the budget of the President cut the airborne laser program $92 million. In addition, the defense budget reduced science and technology spending, according to our first estimates, by more than $1 billion. It is not easy to understand. The administration proposes sacrificing the potential of real defense against proliferation threats, although it seems very clearly to be a shortsighted approach. I have been working as hard as I can, and in some instances at the forefront, on some prevention efforts, especially with respect to proliferation threats from Russia. I hope this year for stepped up measures of prevention, especially regarding the threat of nuclear proliferation in the form of the brain drain from Russia. At the same time, where I can, I will put on a full court press to improve the science and technology budget for the Pentagon, especially as it pertains to the most promising means of missile defense and directed energy. I hope my colleagues will join in ensuring that every means of proliferation prevention is pursued. I also invite my colleagues to join in increasing the means of our military laboratories to provide for our national defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 7 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Under that time limit, can the Senator from New Mexico speak?

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, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes, and in the normal routine to return to Senator Murkowski from Alaska.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday, I commented on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments. I thought then, and I think today, there are a few remarks that I probably ought to make aside from complimenting the distinguished Senator for his untiring efforts to address nuclear waste in a logical and sensible way. Mr. President, I rise to compliment Senator Murkowski's leadership on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I appreciate his efforts to enable progress on the nation's need for concrete action on spent nuclear fuel. 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 has 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. It's contributed to the freedoms we so cherish. Nuclear energy is another great American success story. It now supplies about 20 percent of our nation's electricity, it is not a supply that we can afford to lose. It's done it 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 countries 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 will support this Act's approach with the early receipt facility. I appreciate that Senator Murkowski has 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 has developed in his manager's amendment. 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. The NRC should be complimented for their courageous stand against the EPA in this issue. Their issuance of a scientifically appropriate standard stands in stark contrast to the first effort from the EPA. Thanks to the actions of the NRC, the EPA can be guided toward reasonable standards. Certainly, my preference is to have the NRC issue the final standard. But I appreciate the effort that Senator Murkowski has expended in seeking compromise in this difficult area. By following the procedures in the manager's amendment, we can allow the EPA to set the final standard, guided by the inputs from the NRC and NAS. Thus, I will support the manager's amendment. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Murskowski for his superb leadership in preparing this new act. We need to pass this manager's amendment with a veto-proof majority, to ensure that we finally attain some movement in the nation's ability to deal with high level nuclear waste. We hear so much in the United States about how dangerous nuclear power is, how dangerous these fuel rods are that come out of the reactors, how dangerous nuclear reactors are, and I thought I might share with whomever is interested a bit of information about how safe nuclear powerplants are. In this country, when we talk about moving some of the nuclear waste from one State to another, people get up in arms and they want to march down the streets because they are frightened to death that something is going to happen if this nuclear waste moves down the streets, the roads, the highways, or whatever. I thought I might share a series of facts with you that might make you think a little bit. First, the U.S. Navy launched the first nuclear-powered submarine in 1954. We put a nuclear reactor in a submarine and we sent the submarine all over the oceans of the world, and nothing ever happened to anyone. Since then, the Navy has launched 200 nuclear-powered ships, and about 85 are currently in operation. In other words, 85 of the U.S. Navy's best and biggest warships are on the high seas with a nuclear reactor-- in some cases two reactors--on board. Were something to happen, it would permeate and go right through the water. But guess what. Nothing has ever happened to anyone. Guess what else. Every major port in the world accepts America's Navy ships with nuclear reactors on board generating power to run that ship. Nobody seeks to say: You better keep these away from our port because there are a lot of other ships around here. Why is that, I wonder? Why are we on the floor of the Senate almost whipped up to a lather of fear about moving high-level waste from some State in middle America to some State in western America and we have 85 nuclear-powered U.S. Navy ships, from battleships on down, moving around the high seas and docking at various ports everywhere? Nobody has a sign up. Nobody is frightened. Nothing has ever happened. And guess what. Because it was too good to be true, somebody said to go out and find out something about them; they must be hurting people with all these nuclear reactors. So the GAO went out and did an extensive and exemplary study about what they had done and not done. Guess what they found. This is a 1999 review. ``No significant accidents. One resulting in fuel degradation has ever occurred.'' For an office such as the GAO that identifies public problems with Government programs, that is a pretty impressive statement. Our nuclear-powered ships, I say to Senator Murkowski, have traveled over 117 million miles on the high seas of the world. Nobody has said we don't want them on the high seas because they have a nuclear powerplant in them because they are safe as safe can be. Yet when it comes to us here in America we wonder whether we can transport some nuclear waste 200 miles. If we aren't technically sound enough, if we are not smart enough, if we are not engineered and qualified to be able to move something such as this 200 or 300 miles when the Navy has been moving reactors on the high seas 117 million miles--they have commissioned 33 new reactors in the 1990s. Just think of that. That puts them ahead of the civilian power by a score of 33 to 0. Because we have frightened ourselves to death, we will not even license a new nuclear powerplant in the United States. We surely are proud as proud can be when we see a great big American battleship or aircraft carrier floating on those high seas with all those Navy guys on board. What do they have? Some of them have two nuclear powerplants in the hull loaded with the same kind of waste product about which we are so worried. The distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying: Why don't we just move that and put it in a place where it can be stored? No one else in the world who is involved in nuclear power has tied the future of nuclear power and nuclear use to the ultimate disposition of the high-level waste residue in a permanent underground facility from whence it can never be extracted and for which the technical requirements are so severe in terms of making sure it lasts for 100,000 years--or whatever the number is--that we are never going to get it done. It is amazing. It is just amazing. The country of France gets 87 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They still do not have a plan to put the nuclear waste away permanently because they are not frightened about it. They trust their intelligent, enlightened leaders, who currently have it in gymnasiums about the size of high schools. That is where it is stored. You can walk on top of it where it is stored and nobody is worried about anything. Here we are debating whether we could have a temporary storage facility--as the country that invented it, as the country that engineered it, as the country whose great nuclear physicists invented the notion and came up with the idea of how to power-generate it, and we sit, except for the U.S. Navy, letting the rest of the world just pass us by. The Senator from Alaska will never get the credit he deserves for trying to get this little site, this temporary facility. He will never get the credit. People are thinking we are trying to pull something over on them; we might be hurting people; we are just trying to get it out of one site and hide it someplace else. There are 85 U.S. Navy ships, I remind everybody one more time, of all sizes, including battleships, aircraft carriers, and some with two nuclear powerplants on them. As we stand right here, they are floating around on the high seas where the water is all fissionable. If you are in this part of the Atlantic, the water will eventually end up over here miles away, and nobody is lodging serious complaints. They may say we don't want the U.S. Navy around for some other reason. And thank God we have them. But they are in ports everywhere. They don't take the nuclear powerplant out before they come into a port. Right? They don't have three kinds of motors around. They may have a couple of auxiliary motors. But the nuclear powerplants are right there on board. I thought I would just state that part of my statement which I put in the Record yesterday because it is so obvious to me that we are being so foolish in tying the ultimate disposition of the high-level waste generated by 20 percent of our electrical powerplants, which are nuclear, to a policy that says unless and until we find a place to put that underground at Yucca--wherever it is in Nevada--forever we will not continue with nuclear power. I believe it is so shortsighted and based on such an insignificant set of scientific facts that it is almost as if America just wouldn't do something such as that. But we are doing it. There were letters circulating yesterday that the proposal of the Senator from Alaska would not be helpful; in fact, it would hurt people. I don't think I have to repeat. I think I have made the case. What would the world be doing if in fact nuclear reactors were that unsafe and U.S. Navy ships want to dock to let their Navy men go on shore for a while and then get on with something else? I do not believe they would be saying: Have we found a place to put the nuclear waste that is coming in on that new battleship that you are generating? Have you found a place to put it away forever? I think they would say: Gee, there is no risk at all involved. It is a pretty good venture. We are glad to have you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President I rise today to salute the 150th Security Forces Squadron and the 150th Civil Engineering Squadron of the New Mexico Air National Guard. Federally recognized on July 7, 1947 as the 188th Fighter Bomber Squadron, the ``Tacos'' have contributed significantly to U.S. military operations in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, and are scheduled to deploy to Turkey next January as part of Operation Northern Watch. During their 52-year history, the Tacos were the first Air National Guard unit to be converted to the F-100 aircraft in 1958 and the A-7D aircraft in 1973. Since 1970, when the 150th Fighter Wing evolved into a joint support force, the Tacos have been utilized by every branch of our Armed Forces except for the Coast Guard. The Tacos are characteristic of the many exceptional units that comprise our Nation's Reserve and National Guard, and I have no doubt that they will continue to ensure the success of our military missions both domestically and abroad. I would ask that my colleagues join me in thanking them for their dedicated service. I recently received a letter from General A.C. Zinni, the U.S. Marine Corps Commander in Chief commending the Tacos for their distinguished service and the substantial role they played in the success of Operation Southern Watch. I ask that General A.C. Zinni's letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Central Command, Office of the Commander in Chief, MacDill Air Force Base, FL, January 20, 2000. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Domenici: I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the deployment this past year by members of the 150th Security Forces Squadron and the 150th Civil Engineering Squadron, New Mexico Air National Guard, to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. These units are but two of many outstanding Reserve and National Guard units to deploy to Central Command's area of responsibility and contribute to the success of Operation

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to compliment Senator Murkowski's leadership on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I appreciate his efforts to enable progress on the Nation's need for concrete action on spent nuclear fuel. 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 has 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. It's contributed to the freedoms we so cherish. Nuclear energy is another great American success story. It now supplies about 20 percent of our nation's electricity, it is not a supply that we can afford to lose. It's done it 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 have 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 will support this Act's approach with the early receipt facility. I appreciate that Senator Murkowski has 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 am 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 will 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. I want to specifically discuss one of the compromises that Senator Murkowski has developed in his Manager's Amendment. 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. The NRC should be complimented for their courageous stand against the EPA in this issue. Their issuance of a scientifically appropriate standard stands in stark contrast to the first effort from the EPA. Thanks to the actions of the NRC, the EPA can be guided toward reasonable standards. Certainly my preference is to have the NRC issue the final standard. But I appreciate the effort that Senator Murkowski has expended in seeking compromise in this difficult area. By following the procedures in the Manager's Amendment, we can allow the EPA to set the final standard, guided by the inputs from the NRC and NAS. Thus, I will support the Manager's Amendment. I thank Senator Murkowski for his superb leadership in preparing this new act. We need to pass this Manager's Amendment with a veto-proof majority, to ensure that we finally attain some movement in the nation's ability to deal with high level nuclear waste.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a front page article in yesterday's New York Times announced an agreement that will halt Russia's production of plutonium from spent fuel used in its civilian power reactors. In exchange for a Russian moratorium on plutonium reprocessing, the United States will provide a $100 million joint research and aid. I strongly support these efforts and believe that this proposal will help to reduce the threat of proliferation from nuclear materials in Russia. However, as we pursue new initiatives to better safeguard Russia's civilian plutonium, we must not waver in our support for the more urgent task of disposing of their weapons plutonium. The 50 tons of military-grade plutonium that Russia has agreed is surplus could fuel more than 6,000 modern weapons. I'm pleased that the Administration is also recognizing that the lower-grade, civilian, plutonium presents some risk--but we must continue to place our highest priority on their military materials, which represent a significantly higher risk. Currently, Russia possesses 30 tons of separated civilian plutonium at Mayak and continues to accumulate 2 tons per year from reprocessing at that facility. This is in addition to the 150 or more tons of weapons plutonium in the Russian complex. First, we must ensure that these materials are safeguarded. Second, any burn capacity Russia has should be committed to first eliminating military-origin plutonium as mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. Until the threat from weapons plutonium is eliminated, Russia has no use for this reprocessed fuel, and its continued production represents a proliferation risk, albeit less then the risk from weapons-grade materials. This agreement will help address immediate needs. As part of this agreement, the United States will contribute $45 million to improve control and accounting of civilian-grade plutonium already stored at the Mayak site and build an additional large dry storage facility elsewhere in Russia. Another $30 million will ensure adequate safeguards--protection, control and accounting--on the existing materials. The balance of U.S. contributions--$25 million for research on proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and permanent geological storage--is conditioned on Russia ending its sales of nuclear technology to Iran. Mr. President, while I support this new initiative to temporarily halt Russian extraction of plutonium from their spent nuclear fuel, I want to be sure that my enthusiasm is not interpreted as support for stopping reprocessing on a global scale. Some nations, like Japan and France, have decided that reprocessing of spent fuel is key to their nuclear power plans. By this reprocessing, they not only recycle plutonium back into reactors, they mitigate the hazard associated with their nuclear wastes. In contrast, the U.S. has stuck to an old, 1977, decision to simply bury our spent fuel--plutonium and all. That not only increases the health risk from our spent fuel relative to that in France or Japan, it also means that we are proposing to bury a significant energy resource that our own future generations may need. The origin of the 1977 decision, fear of proliferation of reactor-grade plutonium, is certainly not without validity. But reprocessing can be done, as the French and British have demonstrated, with sufficient care to ensure that proliferation does not occur. Reprocessing is not something that the U.S. should embrace today--it really wouldn't be economical with today's cheap uranium prices. But I've worked with Senator Murkowski to introduce provisions into his current Nuclear Waste bill to require that we study advanced reprocessing and transmutation systems that would both minimize proliferations concerns related to spent fuel, and also study technologies that minimize hazards from spent fuel for the public and for workers. I will encourage that Russia continue to study these same technologies, because they have great expertise in these areas. Sometime in the future, we may need to use reprocessing to regain use of the energy content in spent fuel. Thus, I believe we should keep future options for civilian fuel reprocessing open even as we focus attention in Russia on burning military-origin plutonium. Certainly for now, any attempt to burn civilian-origin plutonium in Russia only delays progress in decreasing Russia's excess weapons plutonium stockpile. Let me return briefly to the more urgent matters associated with military-grade plutonium. As the Chair of the Senate Plutonium Task Force, I have pushed hard for completion of a U.S.-Russia agreement on military plutonium. In 1998, I led the charge to appropriate $200 million for implementation of such an agreement. I understand that negotiations for this plutonium agreement are very near completion. This agreement will outline a framework within which the U.S. and Russia will dispose of 50 tons of excess weapons plutonium. This framework will address timetables for progress, rates of disposal, and reciprocal verification of compliance. This agreement will turn the U.S. and Russian political commitments regarding irreversibility into a physical reality. However, I've been dismayed that the Administration has recently chosen to remove $49 million from the $200 million set aside for disposition of weapons-plutonium to fund other priorities. That is very short sighted reasoning. The full $200 million has served to keep pressure on the negotiating teams to finalize the disposition protocols. We send a completely inappropriate message when funds are withdrawn from that account. I intend to work in the next few months to restore this $49 million. Furthermore, I will continue to oppose any future use of these funds by the Administration for anything other than their intended purpose. The Administration's new initiative can work in tandem with the efforts focused on military plutonium. I urge the Administration to make quick and quantifiable progress on both of these fronts. The threat of proliferation from the Russian nuclear complex continues to grow. And it continues to be one of the greatest threats to U.S. security today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to help resolve whether the federal government inadequately implemented the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hildalgo in New Mexico. Today is the 152d anniversary of the signing by the United States of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo with Mexico. Under this 1848 treaty, the United States acquired the territory that is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. Unfortunately, the potential failure of this country to meet its obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo has been a source of continuing controversy, and many New Mexicans claim they were illegally deprived of property rights by the federal government. For example, in California, about seventy-three percent of land grant claims have been confirmed compared to only twenty-four percent in New Mexico, which raises questions as to whether adjudications in New Mexico were equitably and fairly administered. We must take the opportunity to reverse the heritage of ill-will between the Hispanic people of New Mexico and the Federal government. Hispanic descendants in our state have been waiting over 150 years to get the federal government to fairly look into the community land grants issue. In 1848, land grant claimants were led to believe that their property rights would be honored and protected, but they have repeatedly been frustrated by government officials. One Surveyor General for New Mexico has been described by historians as ``steeped in prejudice against New Mexico, its people and their property rights.'' Other opportunists used long legal battles to acquire empires that extended over millions of acres--all at the expense of local Hispanics. In 1891, the Surveyor General was replaced by the Court of Private Land Claims, but the court's procedures heavily favored the government. The Court of Claims required that claimants prove that the Spanish or Mexican granting official had the legal authority to issue the land grant. The claimants did not have access to necessary documentation, and often did not speak English. Consequently, the court rejected two- thirds of the New Mexico claims presented before it. Ultimately, by one account written by Richard Griswold del Castillo, only eighty-two grants received Congressional confirmation. This represented only six percent of the total area sought by land claimants, leaving a bitter legacy. In the 105th Congress, Congressman Redmond was able to pass a bill out of the House of Representatives creating a Presidential Commission to evaluate the community land grants located in New Mexico. I was proud to introduce a companion bill, including a few changes based on the lessons I learned from talking to the heirs of some of the land grants; from reviewing the history; and from talking to scholars, historians and land grant lawyers. After hearings and continuing dialog with land grant heirs, we realized that the natural first step in the process was determining whether the grantees' rights had been violated under the Treaty. It became clear that adequate time for a thorough study of the issue was needed. Documents had to be gathered. Resolution of the dispute must take into account intervening legal rights. Last year, Senator Bingaman and I originally proposed that the Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, should investigate whether the United States properly implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in New Mexico. If that investigation found that the federal government needed to rectify past abuses, the President would submit a proposal to Congress to resolve those claims. The Senate supported our desire last fall to include in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill the requirement that the Justice Department conduct such a study. However, the Justice Department objected on the grounds that it could not be a neutral examiner of the legal obligations of the United States in this situation. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was recommended by House appropriators as an alternative, and language directing GAO conduct a study was included in the original conference report for Department of Justice appropriations. However, that provision was written in the waning hours of the conference, without time for consultation with the GAO, and while the focus of the conference was turned to other matters. Consequently, we believed that language was inadequate to serve New Mexico's needs. At our request, the appropriations conferees removed the inadequate study language from the final version of the CJS conference report. I must say that I respectfully disagree with the Justice Department's contention that they could not properly conduct such a study. What better arm of the government should investigate whether the United States properly implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in New Mexico? Nonetheless, after meeting with top-level representatives at the Department of Justice, Senator Bingaman and I met with GAO's General Counsel Robert Murphy and Principal Assistant Comptroller General Gene Dodaro to craft language that more closely reflected the needs of New Mexico, and the capabilities of the GAO. We have formally asked GAO to review how the United States implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of community land grant claims in New Mexico. The GAO will submit an interim report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and to the President of the United States, by the end of this year. A final report will be submitted by the end of 2002. This will allow the GAO adequate time to investigate this complicated issue. The report will include a description of the legal obligations of the United States to protect the rights of community land grants and its actions in carrying out the provisions of the treaty, an assessment of the issues raised concerning the implementation of the treaty provisions, and identification of potential methods of resolving any failure by the United States with regard to community land grant claims. The GAO shall also discuss the potential effects of resolution options on intervening legal rights and on Tribal land claims. In no event should any identification of remedies include divestiture of private property rights. The bill we introduce today directs that if the GAO concludes that the obligations of the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo regarding the protection of the community land grant rights do not appear to have been met, the Department of Justice shall prepare for the President a list of alternative methods to remedy the problem. The President will then submit to Congress recommendations to resolve these claims within six months of the submission of the GAO report. Again, we also wish to ensure that no recommendations include the potential divestiture of private property rights. We do not wish to transplant one potential injustice with another. Trying to do justice 150 years after the fact is complicated. I am hopeful that this bill can address what has been, for too long, a tale of land loss and bitterness between the United States and some of its New Mexico citizens.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to help resolve whether the federal government inadequately implemented the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hildalgo in New Mexico. Today is the 152d anniversary of the signing by the United States of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo with Mexico. Under this 1848 treaty, the United States acquired the territory that is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. Unfortunately, the potential failure of this country to meet its obligations under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo has been a source of continuing controversy, and many New Mexicans claim they were illegally deprived of property rights by the federal government. For example, in California, about seventy-three percent of land grant claims have been confirmed compared to only twenty-four percent in New Mexico, which raises questions as to whether adjudications in New Mexico were equitably and fairly administered. We must take the opportunity to reverse the heritage of ill-will between the Hispanic people of New Mexico and the Federal government. Hispanic descendants in our state have been waiting over 150 years to get the federal government to fairly look into the community land grants issue. In 1848, land grant claimants were led to believe that their property rights would be honored and protected, but they have repeatedly been frustrated by government officials. One Surveyor General for New Mexico has been described by historians as ``steeped in prejudice against New Mexico, its people and their property rights.'' Other opportunists used long legal battles to acquire empires that extended over millions of acres--all at the expense of local Hispanics. In 1891, the Surveyor General was replaced by the Court of Private Land Claims, but the court's procedures heavily favored the government. The Court of Claims required that claimants prove that the Spanish or Mexican granting official had the legal authority to issue the land grant. The claimants did not have access to necessary documentation, and often did not speak English. Consequently, the court rejected two- thirds of the New Mexico claims presented before it. Ultimately, by one account written by Richard Griswold del Castillo, only eighty-two grants received Congressional confirmation. This represented only six percent of the total area sought by land claimants, leaving a bitter legacy. In the 105th Congress, Congressman Redmond was able to pass a bill out of the House of Representatives creating a Presidential Commission to evaluate the community land grants located in New Mexico. I was proud to introduce a companion bill, including a few changes based on the lessons I learned from talking to the heirs of some of the land grants; from reviewing the history; and from talking to scholars, historians and land grant lawyers. After hearings and continuing dialog with land grant heirs, we realized that the natural first step in the process was determining whether the grantees' rights had been violated under the Treaty. It became clear that adequate time for a thorough study of the issue was needed. Documents had to be gathered. Resolution of the dispute must take into account intervening legal rights. Last year, Senator Bingaman and I originally proposed that the Attorney General, acting through the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, should investigate whether the United States properly implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in New Mexico. If that investigation found that the federal government needed to rectify past abuses, the President would submit a proposal to Congress to resolve those claims. The Senate supported our desire last fall to include in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill the requirement that the Justice Department conduct such a study. However, the Justice Department objected on the grounds that it could not be a neutral examiner of the legal obligations of the United States in this situation. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was recommended by House appropriators as an alternative, and language directing GAO conduct a study was included in the original conference report for Department of Justice appropriations. However, that provision was written in the waning hours of the conference, without time for consultation with the GAO, and while the focus of the conference was turned to other matters. Consequently, we believed that language was inadequate to serve New Mexico's needs. At our request, the appropriations conferees removed the inadequate study language from the final version of the CJS conference report. I must say that I respectfully disagree with the Justice Department's contention that they could not properly conduct such a study. What better arm of the government should investigate whether the United States properly implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of valid land grant claims in New Mexico? Nonetheless, after meeting with top-level representatives at the Department of Justice, Senator Bingaman and I met with GAO's General Counsel Robert Murphy and Principal Assistant Comptroller General Gene Dodaro to craft language that more closely reflected the needs of New Mexico, and the capabilities of the GAO. We have formally asked GAO to review how the United States implemented the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which pertain to the protection of community land grant claims in New Mexico. The GAO will submit an interim report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and to the President of the United States, by the end of this year. A final report will be submitted by the end of 2002. This will allow the GAO adequate time to investigate this complicated issue. The report will include a description of the legal obligations of the United States to protect the rights of community land grants and its actions in carrying out the provisions of the treaty, an assessment of the issues raised concerning the implementation of the treaty provisions, and identification of potential methods of resolving any failure by the United States with regard to community land grant claims. The GAO shall also discuss the potential effects of resolution options on intervening legal rights and on Tribal land claims. In no event should any identification of remedies include divestiture of private property rights. The bill we introduce today directs that if the GAO concludes that the obligations of the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo regarding the protection of the community land grant rights do not appear to have been met, the Department of Justice shall prepare for the President a list of alternative methods to remedy the problem. The President will then submit to Congress recommendations to resolve these claims within six months of the submission of the GAO report. Again, we also wish to ensure that no recommendations include the potential divestiture of private property rights. We do not wish to transplant one potential injustice with another. Trying to do justice 150 years after the fact is complicated. I am hopeful that this bill can address what has been, for too long, a tale of land loss and bitterness between the United States and some of its New Mexico citizens.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the budget through January 27, 2000. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2000 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget (H. Con. Res. 68). The budget resolution figures incorporate revisions submitted to the Senate to reflect funding for emergency requirements, disability reviews, adoption assistance, the earned income tax credit initiative, and arrearages for international organizations, peacekeeping, and multilateral banks. The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $10.3 billion in budget authority and below the budget resolution by $2.3 billion in outlays. Current level is $17.8 billion above the revenue floor in 2000. The current estimate of the deficit for purposes of calculating the maximum deficit amount is $20.6 billion, which is $5.7 billion below the maximum deficit amount for 2000 of $26.3 billion. Since my last report, dated September 28, 1999, the Congress has passed and the President has signed the following acts: Veterans, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-74), Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106- 78), Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102), an Act Making Consolidated Appropriations for FY 2000 (P.L. 106-113), Veterans' Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L. 106-117), an act to convey property in Sisters, Oregon (P.L. 106- 144), an act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint various commemorative coins (P.L. 106-126), Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169), and Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170). These actions have changed the current level of budget authority, outlays, and revenues. This is my first report for the second session of the 106th Congress. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, January 28, 2000. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report for fiscal year 2000 shows the effects of Congressional action on the 2000 budget and is current through January 27, 2000. This report is submitted under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. The budget resolution figures incorporate revisions submitted to the Senate to reflect funding for emergency requirements, disability reviews, adoption assistance, the earned income tax credit initiative, and arrearages for international organizations, peacekeeping, and multilateral banks. These revisions are required by section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. Since my last report, dated October 6, 1999, the Congress has passed, and the President has signed the following acts: Veterans, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106- 74), Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-78), Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-79), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102), an Act Making Consolidated Appropriations for FY 2000 (P.L. 106-113), Veterans' Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L. 106- 117), an act to convey property in Sisters, Oregon (P.L. 106- 144), an act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint various commemorative coins (P.L. 106-126), Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169), and Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170). These actions have changed the current levels of budget authority, cutlays, and revenues. This is my first report for the second session of the 106th Congress. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosures.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation important to the energy security of our country. This legislation entitled the ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization and Improvements Act of 2000'' not only includes provisions authorizing the annual funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), but makes essential amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today will assist the NRC in its efforts to achieve greater efficiencies and eliminate outdated restrictions within our nuclear energy sector. As mentioned, this legislation includes several amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, including the following: Eliminating provisions in current law that preclude any foreign ownership of power and research reactors located in the United States. These outdated provisions are a significant obstacle to foreign investment or participation in the U.S. nuclear power industry and its restructuring. No valid reasons exist to prohibit investors from countries such as the United Kingdom from participating in the ownership of nuclear plants in this country. The provisions in current law that protect U.S. security interests are unchanged by my legislation. Eliminationg the current statutory requirement that the NRC conduct an antitrust review in connection with licensing actions. Other federal agencies already have comprehensive responsibility to enforce antitrust laws affecting electric utilities. Requiring the NRC to do independent antitrust evaluations for licensing actions is redundant, time- consuming and unnecessary. Simplifying the hearing requirements in a proceeding involving an amendment to an existing operating license, or the transfer of an existing operating license. The amendment provides that the Commission should not use formal adjudicatory procedures in such cases, but rather should comply with the informal rulemaking requirements contained in the Administrative Procedure Act. Giving the NRC the authority to establish such requirements it deems necessary to ensure that non-licenses fully comply with their obligations to provide funding for nuclear plant decommissioning. This includes jurisdiction over non-licensees, i.e., those who have transferred their license but retain responsibility for decommissioning. The proposed package also includes legislative provisions sought by the NRC. The foreign ownership and anti-trust review changes just mentioned were included in the NRC's legislative proposals last year. Other provisions requested by the NRC should serve to enhance nuclear safety and physical security, increase efficiency, and enhance the economic use of Commission resources. These changes are necessary to ensure that nuclear energy remains part of our nation's energy portfolio. Nuclear energy is a vital ingredient for providing U.S. base load capacity based on economic, environmental and electricity needs. Mr. President, I am sure everyone is aware of my strong commitment to nuclear energy. This conviction is well-founded. One need only consider a few simple facts to find justification for my position. Ensuring diversity and reliability in our nation's future energy portfolio is a critical national security concern. As just one example, our increasing dependence on imported fossil fuel is a cause for concern. Last year oil imports accounted for 54% of U.S. oil consumption. This dependence could create a national security crisis. This dependence may also contribute to an environmental crisis. Similarly, although we continue to invest in renewable energy resources, the hard facts demonstrate that renewables alone cannot obtain sufficient energy generation to meet future needs. An article by Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller in the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs argues the case for nuclear energy in detail. Mr. President, allow me briefly to review some facts found in this article that address some very important questions. These repeat the same points I made in a speech at Harvard in October of 1997 and have made many times since. First, what estimated energy demands will the world face? A 1999 report by the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering estimates that the consumption of energy will at least double in the next 50 years and grow by a factor of up to five in the next century. The OECD projects 65% growth in world energy demand by 2020. How can nuclear energy play a role in meeting future energy needs? The anti-nuclear groups are dead wrong. Nuclear power is neither dead nor dying. France generates 79 percent of its electricity with nuclear power; Belgium, 60 percent; Sweden, 42 percent; Japan 34 percent; and the United States, 20 percent. The United States remains the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world, and the U.S. nuclear industry generated nine percent more nuclear electricity in 1999 than 1998. In order to sustain economic growth, China has plans for as many as 100 nuclear power plants, and South Korea will more than double its capacity by building 16 new plants. Nuclear power's advantage is the ability to generate a vast amount of energy from a minute quantity of fuel. For example, whereas one kilogram of firewood can produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity and the ratio for oil is one-to-four, one kilogram of uranium fuel in a modern light-water reactor generates 400,000 kilowatts of electricity, even without recycling. Nuclear safety and efficiency have improved dramatically in the last decade. For example, the average U.S. capacity factor in 1998 was 80 percent, compared to 58 percent in 1980 and 66 percent in 1990. The average production costs for nuclear energy are now at just under two cents per kilowatt-hour, while electricity produced from gas costs almost three and a half cents per kilowatt-hour. Most importantly, radiation exposure to workers and waste produced per unit of energy have hit new lows. What about the risks from radioactivity? Good evidence exists that exposure to low doses of radioactivity actually improves health and lengthens life through stimulation of the immune system. Unfortunately, U.S. standards, in particular those established by the Environmental Protection Agency, rely on a theory--the ``linear no-threshold'' theory (LNT)--that predicts exposure to trivial levels of radiation increases the risk of cancer. One should keep in mind that the levels argued to increase risk of cancer by this model are considerably less than preexisting natural levels of background radiation. Furthermore, this theory is by no means accepted by the entire scientific community. According to recent studies by the Harvard School of Public Health, a 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant. However, the same standards for radioactive releases do not apply to coal and nuclear plants. And, experts on coal geology and engineering have concluded that ``radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm.'' Can we not place more reliance on renewables? Even if robustly subsidized, renewables will only move from their present 0.5 percent share to claim no more than five to eight percent by 2020. The U.S. leads in renewable energy generation, but such production declined by 9.4 percent from 1997 to 1998: hydro by 9.2%, geothermal by 5.4%, wind by 50.5%, and solar by 27.7%. Are we making smart investments for U.S. energy security? Federal R&D investment per thousand kilowatt was only five cents for nuclear and coal, 58 cents for oil, and 41 cents for gas; however, it was $4,769 for wind and $17,006 for photovoltaics. In brief, we need nuclear. Our economic growth and security depend on it. The benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks. Renewables cannot fill the gap--either between today's demands and future needs or today with nuclear and today without. Not only are coal, gas and oil finite resources, but their use is harmful to human health and the environment. Mr. President, we must not fail to ensure that nuclear is part of our energy mix. Our nation's energy future must include nuclear in order to be sufficiently diverse, reliable and adequate to meet future energy needs. The legislation I am offering today will help ensure that nuclear remains part of our energy mix. Deregulation of the electric utility industry increases the need to keep operating costs low enough to be competitive. For this reason, nuclear energy's future rides on decreasing costs of regulation, especially that of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. With gentle prodding and some more overt tactics from the Congress, positive changes at the NRC have been forthcoming. While holding fast to its primary health and safety mission, the NRC needed to move from a traditional deterministic approach to a more risk-informed and performance-based approach to regulation. In brief, the NRC needed to achieve a rapid transition to an entirely different regulatory framework, streamline its processes, and offer clear definitions, standards, and requirements. Let me briefly highlight two of the milestones of the past year: Reactor Oversight.--The NRC commenced with a pilot program for the new reactor licensee oversight process. This process will replace the current inspections, assessment and enforcement processes. Plants will be evaluated in three key areas: reactor safety, radiation safety and security safeguards. Twenty ``performance indicators'' will assess overall performance in each area. Most stakeholders view this as a big step toward more consistent and objective assessments. The NRC plans full implementation of this inspection regime for all nuclear plants this year. Licensing Actions.--The NRC continued completion of licensing actions at a rate greater than NRC Performance Plan output measures and continued to reduce the licensing action inventory. For instance, one indicator of greater efficiency in licensing actions is the age of the inventory. 1999 showed consistent improvements in turnaround time. For fiscal year 1998, the NRC licensing action inventory included 65.6% of licensing actions that were less than 1 year old; 86% that were less than 2 years old; and 95.4% that were less than 3 years old. By October 1999, 95% of the licensing action inventory was less than 1 year old; and 100% was less than two years old. These are just two examples. With Congress and industry demanding regulatory change, the agency is responding. All elements of change, especially the overall shift from a deterministic to a risk-informed paradigm, remain work-in-progress. I believe, however, the general consensus is that the last couple years have been very positive. At the same time, the NRC needs our assistance in removing outdated and unnecessary statutory provisions. This legislation will achieve that. Mr. President, I close with the same thoughts as Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller: ``Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical, and affordable. It is not the problem--it is one of the best solutions.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation and the Foreign Affairs article entitled ``The Need for Nuclear Power'' by Dr. Rhodes and Dr. Beller be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to take a few moments to thank a few people and summarize the budget bill that we are going to pass this evening, hopefully. I want to thank the White House for their cooperation in coming to an agreement with reference to the appropriations bill and all of those things that are in the so-called omnibus package. In particular, I want to thank the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Lew. The last evening when we were about to depart and part company and say we will go our own ways, they asked me if I would meet with Mr. Lew, and if we could see if we could work something out. We are here today with a bipartisan bill because we did work something out. I thought it was the very best thing we could do. Frankly, I am proud of it. I wish it could have been done sooner. I am hoping that next year we will get the appropriations bills done perhaps 6 to 7 or 8 weeks sooner than we did this year. But I want to start by quoting from the New York Times, not necessarily a newspaper that thinks what Republicans do is necessarily good, as I do, but they said in their editorial, on their editorial page, the following thing about this budget bill that we are going to have before us: There are modest spending increases in some of the President's priority areas like education but over all the Republican approach of spending restraint has shaped this budget.'' I am very proud of that. I think that is true because what we have done is we have kept the faith with those who want a balanced budget. This budget proposal ensures a balanced budget without using Social Security trust fund money. I ask parenthetically for those who still doubt that because they do not have a Congressional Budget Office letter that says it, if the President of the United States would be asking Democrats to vote for this measure if he and his OMB Director thought it was using Social Security trust fund money? I think the answer is no. They know it does not. I know it does not. And I can promise the Senate, come February or March, when you reestimate everything, it will not be using the Social Security trust fund money. I think that is the new discipline that has been imposed on our economy and our fiscal policy. It is a brand new event to say we are not going to spend Social Security money, and it is the best thing we can do for the American economy because, Senator Moynihan, to the extent we do not spend it, we reduce the public debt. So for those who are wondering about the public debt, the public debt is reduced dollar for dollar when you leave Social Security surpluses alone year by year as they accumulate and do not spend them. Now, let me tell you a dramatic statement about our current fiscal policy. Who would think a budget chairman could stand on the floor and say to the Senators who are listening, we will pay down the publicly- held debt by $130 billion? Think of that--$130 billion. If that does not mean that as soon as we saw surplus we did not run out and spend it, then I do not know what it means. Frankly, I think my good friend, Senator Gramm from Texas, is correct; in about 30 or 40 years, when they look back on this period in time, they are going to say: Incredible. With the kind of surpluses that existed, not a single new entitlement program of major proportion was started, and not a single new American spending program was started because the accumulations went into the Social Security trust fund instead of being used to pay for more Government. I am proud of that. I think it is the best medicine for growth and prosperity in the future. It holds Government spending, as we calculate it overall, to about 3.3 percent this year over last year--that includes entitlements and appropriations--a very interesting number. In the 1970's, it was 11 percent growth. In the 1980's, it was 8 percent growth. For those who in editorial comments across this land call this a bloated budget, let me suggest, the fiscal policy of the United States which has the Government growing less than the economy is growing is not bad fiscal policy. That is about where we are now under the culmination of this budget process for this year. In the meantime, when we passed the budget resolution in April of this past year, we said we wanted to do some very important things. First, we wanted to increase the flexibility in education programs. It does not matter how much the President or others claim that the President won the education battle. The truth of the matter is, Republicans put more money in education than the President asked for. For the first time we have flexibility. Twenty percent of the money that was going to go to teachers directly, and targeted and for nothing else, can be flexibly used by school districts. And the philosophical battle of the future will be flexibility of education funds with accountability versus the targeting and direct aid in very numerous and numbers of targeted mandates that Government says one size fits all. You all use it this way, or you cannot use it at all. We suggested in our budget resolution that we should put more money into research on the dread diseases that affect our people and mankind. We increased NIH $2.3 billion, which is $2 billion more than the President asked for, for dreaded diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and the whole list.