Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. We have a full-blown argument between the House and Senate. We said, no, the defense money is more urgent. That was the national interest.

Mr. DOMENICI. Under the order, I am to proceed. I note the presence of Senator Rockefeller and I will yield to him in 1 minute. In my case, on behalf of oil patch--not Exon and Texaco; these loans do not apply to them--the question has been asked: Why them? As if the United States and the Congress of the United States has not helped businesses that are in bad shape, that are regional or national in nature. And I have no complaints about that help. Let me suggest that since 1993 we have, under supplemental appropriations as an emergency measure, appropriated $12.8 billion for agriculture assistance. That is not oil patch. I voted for agriculture and I live in a modest agriculture State. I was told that it would help, so I voted for it. Natural disasters, the kind that you can hardly avoid calling a disaster, but I think oil patch is a disaster. I will explain that further in my remarks following Senator Rockefeller. Let me talk about natural disasters. People wonder whether emergency designations are useful in this country. In the same period of time, 1993 through 1998, we have spent $36.1 billion for natural disasters without batting an eye. Some of them cost $5 billion. We are concerned about oil patch, especially the small people whose businesses are right down at rock bottom, and the patch isn't flourishing so the bankers are wondering whether they should loan to them. We want them to know we are concerned. I will discuss the numbers. Oil patch, oil rig, oil well drilling, and related activities in America have lost more jobs in the past 10 years than any American industry. Our dependence continues to come down. We are starting to close wells off so they cannot ever be used, because they are too small and too expensive because the price is too low. The companies that work them are going to go broke. We think some are viable and banks might look at them and say with this kind of approach, although the banks will have to risk something under the new approach, we think it might help a few. We have had $36.1 billion in declared emergencies for related damage in natural disasters, $12.7 billion for agriculture, and some Senators think it should have been double that already. I have not been called upon to vote on whether that is enough or not. I listen when we are presented with problems and I do what I can for a part of America's economic sector. That is why I said if we are going to help steel--and I think we ought to do that; I have heard some wonderful Senators discuss why we should--I thought we ought to say something to the oil patch of the United States, since the same kinds of problems are occurring in Hobbs, NM, Eunice, NM, medium and small towns in Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere, and across the oil patch States of this land. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Ohio and that I be recognized when he finishes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of Senator DeWine. Does he want to speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. But, on this one, I had a different view. I think before finishing today, by working with Senator Nickles and Senator Byrd we can bring this closer to some of the basic concerns. We will not get around to the notion that we will make guaranteed loans. In any event, we can't do that, but that would mean we give up our fight, I think, on some other issues. We can make the lending of them more objective--make it so there is a little bit of risk the borrower takes, and also we will discuss with Senator Byrd the makeup of the board. I can't say much about that. We have to talk about it. I am going to go to an appropriations meeting, and I will be back in 15 or 20 minutes. I know Senator Nickles is here. I shared the same concerns with him. I understand he agrees not to offer amendments. We will have a meeting with Senator Byrd, and we will see what we can do about the Senator's amendments. I don't know about other amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. First, I want the Senator to know that more times than not this past year we have been on the floor on the same side. There is an interesting result, which I will not share with anybody when that happens.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Now that I have the floor, I wonder if my friend will engage in a little discussion with me for a moment. I think the approach you have just spoken of will be a good one for the Senate. I am somewhat familiar--I will be more familiar when you are finished with your discussion of your four points--with what kind of amendments you are seeking. I believe it is possible we could sit down with Senator Byrd and work on all of those amendments. Some of us have been thinking about some of those amendments, even without you offering them; and some of them make eminent good sense to me. So if you will do that, if you will discuss them, I am certain that unless there are other Senators beyond you and Senator Nickles, what you are talking about, even if we do not agree, we are not going to be here late tonight on those, if we can get them done. The question is, are there others? And we don't know about that. There may be; there may not be. It may be that we cannot vote on some of these because of some other matters that are beyond our control. But I do not think we need time at 10 tonight to debate the ones you are talking about. We will understand them very soon, and we will start working with you and see what we can do.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished leader. I am trying very hard to stay here and do my part, and I hope Senators will heed his admonition. We would like to finish. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. There are no time limits, I say to the Majority Leader. We were waiting for amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI. You may have as much time as you like.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want to put the word out, Democrat or Republican, whoever has amendments, this bill is subject to amendment. Senator Byrd has expressed the desire that we try to keep it to germane amendments, but that is not the rule. It is up to Senators. I am here on the floor. While many may think I don't have to eat, because other Senators are slimmer than I, and could probably go without lunch more often, I would like to be working. I hope we have something to do. I urge that people get their amendments to the floor and start discussing them. There are a number of them that we want to talk about, with Senators Gramm and Nickles, whenever they are prepared to discuss items with us. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I do have a few minutes I could use up with some comments about oil and gas, this bill, but I truly ask, if there are no Senators that want to offer amendments or speak, I will send word to the leader that we should have a recess for a few minutes to see if we can get some amendments to the floor. In any event, somebody will be here one way or another waiting. Before I finish and ask that my request for a quorum call be announced, I note the presence of the junior Senator from Alabama. I wonder if he would want to comment on something.

Mr. DOMENICI. Why? Because the President asked for $6.5 billion to replenish funds for the Kosovo engagement, which was being taken--by operation of law, nothing illegal about it--from other military needs. That is the way these things happen. The request was: Help us replenish it; give us the money. Now, the point you have made is, we were in conference over that bill to which the Senate had seen fit to add $6 billion more for defense because we were so worried about preparedness, operational maintenance, and spare parts. So it was not just $6.5 billion urgent for defense; it was almost $12 billion. Now, what you have said, my friend from West Virginia, you said we had a right, as conferees--and we had support--to say, let's get our part of this decided in this conference. And what would have happened? We could still, perhaps, be locked up in conference and the urgent money would be yet not decided upon, which funding, in fact, has already been signed by the President and is operating to help our military.

Mr. DOMENICI. We decided, at the request of our chairman, Senator Ted Stevens, to find a way to let that urgent bill go and relinquished our right to bring that back in disagreement, if we wanted, and have some more votes on the issue. I have done that in my life. The Senator has done it a number of times: OK, we are going back to the bodies again and vote again. They would have had to have voted on our amendment there.

Mr. DOMENICI. They would under law, under the rules. We said we would give that up, provided--and you stated the proviso. The proviso was that we be here today, just as we are, with this bill freestanding. We now have it here properly, over long threats for long debates, because the Senate overwhelmingly said: Let's get on with it; even if we don't vote for it, we want to get on with it. So it's urgent that everybody know it's here again with the Senate already having voted for it.

Mr. DOMENICI. They voted for that bill, with large, large support, which had our amendments on it.

Mr. DOMENICI. So the Senate already voted for this.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 17, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 Hart.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, earlier this week the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board released its report on security and counterintelligence operations at the nuclear weapons laboratories of the Department of Energy. The report's title--Science at its Best, Security at its Worst-- neatly encapsulates the Board's findings. This report reiterates and clearly delineates problems within our nuclear laboratories that other reports have also detailed. No one should be surprised. Let me simply list a few of this newest report's more compelling conclusions: At the birth of DOE, the brilliant scientific breakthroughs of the nuclear weapons laboratories came with a troubling record of security administration. Twenty years later, virtually every one of its original problems persists. The nuclear weapons and research functions of DOE need more autonomy, a clearer mission, a streamlined bureaucracy, and increased accountability. More than 25 years worth of reports, studies and formal inquires . . . have identified a multitude of chronic security and counterintelligence problems at all of the weapons labs. Organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs themselves--conspired to create an espionage scandal waiting to happen. The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself. Lastly, the report states: Reorganization is clearly warranted to resolve the many specific problems with security and counterintelligence in the weapons laboratories, but also to address the lack of accountability that has become endemic throughout the entire Department. These findings are nothing new. When Senators Kyl, Murkowski, and I introduced our amendment to the Defense Authorization calling for reorganization and streamlining within the Department of Energy, one of the charges leveled against us was that no hearings had been held on this issue. That old, tired claim that ``we need more hearings'' is used every time Congress tries to act on an urgent matter. Sometimes that may be true. In this instance, we have undoubtedly destroyed a major forest with all the paper documenting DOE mismanagement in just the past 15 years. We have done studies; we have held hearings; the House has held hearings; we have asked for a review by the GAO, by the CRS, by outside groups, and we must have 25 pounds of recommendations gathering dust right now. Today, my friend Secretary Richardson is implementing a new round of reforms at DOE. Mr. President, you should know that, while I have been critical of some past Secretaries for failing to give sufficient attention to these matters, Secretary Richardson is clearly indicating a willingness to tackle these issues. However, Secretaries come and go. Reforms introduced during any specific tenure of a Secretary often do not endure after their departure. The Rudman report states, and I quote, ``the Department of Energy is incapable of reforming itself--bureaucratically and culturally--in a lasting way, even under an activist Secretary.'' I can tell you from my own experience that it is sometimes hard to figure out just who is responsible in any given situation at DOE. Under the current structure the programs within one office, comply with policies set by a second office, in accordance with procedures set by a third office, verified by a fourth office. When I look at something like that, I have to wonder, ``Who is in charge?'' The experts involved in producing the Rudmann Report asked a number of DOE officials to whom they report, who whom they were responsible. The most common response was ``it depends.'' This myriad of oversight and review does not improve performance. To the contrary, in some cases it diminishes performance. It is my view that it is frequently easier to be an overseer than the responsible party. As overseers have multiplied, the line between oversight and responsibility has been blurred and sometimes disappears. The frequent result is that, when mistakes are made, everyone thinks they were an overseer, and nobody takes responsibility. Mr. President, the national laboratories, especially the ones in my state, literally saved millions of lives through their work in World War II and during the cold war. They abound with dedicated, patriotic, and truly gifted men and women, working for this nation's security as their top priority. We should not make the labs a scapegoat for an ineffective bureaucracy. We need a fundamental re-emphasis on the nuclear weapons work at DOE, recognizing that the rules and regimes that govern the rest of the DOE cannot be entirely used in the nuclear weapons complex. I would like to show you an organizational chart of DOE's current structure as it pertains to our nuclear weapons program. This chart is found on page 17 of the new report. As one can readily discern, it's a toss up who or what office might have oversight in a given situation in a maze such at this. Just one glance at this chart makes the point. The PFIAB Report demands legislative changes. Again, I quote, ``The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming itself.'' The PFIAB Report makes some very specific recommendations as to what changes are necessary. The authors recommend that Congress pass and the President sign legislation that: Creates a new, semi-autonomous Agency for Nuclear Stewardship. Streamlines the Nuclear Stewardship management structure. Ensures effective administration of safeguards, security, and counterintelligence at all the weapons labs and plants by creating a coherent security/CI structure within the new agency. The organizational chart outlining this new organization looks something like this. This can be found on page 50 of their report. Creation of a semi-autonomous agency for our nuclear weapons work is precisely what I have been pushing over the last several weeks. Indeed, what I and my colleagues Senator Kyl and Senator Murkowski have proposed boils down to a true ``Chain of Command'' approach, with all the discipline this entails. I truly believe, and today's report confirms, that this approach, if it had been used in the past, may have avoided some of the security problems and will help us avoid them in the future. The Rudman Report is a significant, timely contribution to the accumulating evidence that we must act to ensure that brilliant science and tight security are compatible within our nuclear weapons infrastructure. I would like to congratulate Chairman Rudman and the members of the PFIAB for the tremendous contribution their findings will make to the dialog on how to best preserve our nuclear secrets and still maintain the greatest scientific research centers in the world. The recommendations made in this report parallel what I and my colleagues tried to do several weeks ago. Perhaps this additional evidence will persuade others that it is long past time for Congress to take decisive action. I encourage my colleagues to read the report and draw their own conclusions about the need for organizational reform at DOE.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are ready to go to final passage. We need 2 minutes, and then we will call for third reading. Senator Hutchison wanted 2 minutes. I ask that she be granted 2 minutes, and then we will proceed.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from Idaho. However, it is not clear to me that the Department of Energy currently has the authority to use appropriated funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purpose--on site storage at nuclear power plants-- that is of concern to the Senator from Idaho. As I interpret current law, there exists no statutory provision allowing the Department of Energy to fund on-site storage. If that were the case, would my colleague from Idaho still feel the need to offer his amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. I concur with the Senator on the importance of developing and testing dam safety technologies. However, since funding levels for the Bureau are $95 million below the budget request, there are numerous projects of merit which must go unfunded this year. I wish this were not the case, but I would be happy to work with the Senator should additional resources become available and conference conditions allow the Committee to consider this matter.

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator from Ohio. The subcommittee recognizes the support of the Cincinnati community and regulators. The Department of Energy should take all steps necessary to keep the accelerated cleanup at Fernald on schedule, and the Subcommittee will continue to work with the senior Senator from Ohio to monitor this effort.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments. I am aware and certainly do appreciate the efficiency and budget-wise efforts of the clean-up achievements at the Fernald site.