Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the official Budget Committee scoring of the pending bill--S. 1168, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for FY 2000. The scoring of the bill reflects an amendment I offered at the beginning of this debate to correct an inadvertent error in the bill as reported to the Senate. With this correction of a clerical error, the bill provides $21.3 billion in new budget authority (BA) and $13.3 billion in new outlays to support the programs of the Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and related federal agencies. The bill provides the bulk of funding for the Department of Energy, including Atomic Energy Defense Activities and civilian energy research and development (R&D) other than fossil energy R&D and energy conservation programs. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the pending bill totals $21.3 billion in BA and $20.9 billion in outlays for FY 2000. The bill is $2 million in BA below the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and at the 302(b) allocation for outlays. The Senate bill is $0.1 billion in BA and $0.5 billion in outlays above the 1999 level. The bill is $0.3 billion in both BA and outlays below the President's budget request for FY 2000. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the FY 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill be printed in the Record. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, listening to the statements of the Senator from Idaho, I share his conviction that the name ``Termination Costs'' appears to be inadequate to describe the activities carried out under this program. This is consistent with the position the Senate took last year. I commit to work with my colleague to see that the name is changed to ``Facilities'' as requested by both my colleague and by DOE in the past.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague from Idaho yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the concern of the Senior Senator from Georgia. I share his point of view regarding the importance of this new joint United States-Ukraine facility and the vital research being conducted on the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. While you know how tight our budget is, I assure you that when this bill goes to conference we will make every effort to locate additional funds within DOE to allocate for programs like this and will attempt to find additional funding for DOE programs. name change for termination costs program

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator and encourage the Department of Energy to support a voluntary certification program that will distinguish low impact hydropower from other hydropower. Such a certification program would also help develop new markets for ``green power.''

Mr. DOMENICI. As you mentioned, this appropriations bill was allocated $439 million less than the Fiscal Year 1999 enacted level. Although there are many programs I would have liked to continue, this funding level cannot accommodate all of them. However, I recognize the good projects being undertaken by the regional biomass programs and would encourage the Department of Energy its support for those programs within the overall biomass budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment specifically focused on encouraging small business partnership interactions with the Department of Energy's national laboratories and other facilities associated with Defense Activities. Congress has frequently encouraged the national laboratories and facilities of the Department of Energy to craft partnerships that are supportive of their mission interests. Congress has emphasized that all program funding at these institutions can be used for mission- supportive partnerships. Through industrial interactions, the best practices from industry, from improved technologies to improved operations, can be infused into Department missions. These interactions also provide opportunities for U.S. industry to benefit from technologies developed in support of the Department's mission areas, with a corresponding impact on the competitive position of our nation. In past years, Congress has identified large amounts of funding, over $200 million per year, to encourage formation of these partnerships. There is less need for these funds for industrial interactions today, since the labs and facilities should have learned how to optimally use these partnerships. However, the reduction in funding for industrial interactions does not imply that Congress is less supportive of them, it only indicates the expectations that the Department's programs should be able to continue to use these partnerships without line item funding. One specific class of industrial interactions, however, requires continued attention and specific funding from Congress. This involves interactions with small businesses. Small businesses are a primary engine of U.S. economy. They frequently represent the greatest degree of innovation in their approaches. Their focus on innovation makes them a particularly important partner for the labs and facilities, yet their small size and less developed business operations make interactions with the large Departmental facilities difficult. In addition, each of the labs and facilities needs a supportive small business community surrounding them, one that can provide needed technical services as well as provide an economic climate that assists in recruitment and retention of the specialized personnel required at these facilities. For these reasons, we need a focused small business initiative to encourage interactions with this vital community. These partnership interactions can take many forms, from very formal cooperative research and development agreements to less formal technology assistance. They should be justified either on a mission relevance or regional economic development basis. Four these reasons, Mr. President, this amendment creates a Small Business Initiative within Defense Activities for $10 million. With this Initiative, this vital class of interactions will be encouraged. Mr. President, I also wish to speak about an amendment to add $10 million for a specific area of civilian research and development. This area involves assessment of accelerator transmutation of waste technology that may be able to significantly reduce the radioactivity and radio-toxicity of certain isotopes found in spent nuclear fuel. Accelerator transmutation of waste or ATW may enable the nation to consider alternative strategies for spent nuclear fuel at some future point in time. Our present plan involves no options, it involves only the disposition of spent fuel in a permanent underground geologic repository. Yet that spent fuel still has most of its energy potential. Depending on future generation's needs for energy, the availability of cost effective technologies for generation of electricity, and whatever limitations on power plant emissions may be in place, the nation may want to re-examine the advisability of continuing the current path for spent fuel. Transmutation technologies could enable energy recovery, along with significant reduction in the toxicity of the resulting final waste. However, while transmutation is technically feasible, much research and development will be required to determine its economic implications. There is intense international interest in transmutation--from France, Japan, and Russia as examples. This is an excellent subject for international collaboration, and may lead to additional cooperation in the entire area of spent fuel management. The U.S. needs to have a sufficiently strong program to participate in such an international program, and ideally to exert a degree of leadership on the directions of international spent fuel programs. For these reasons, Mr. President, this amendment adds $10 million to the civilian research and development funding line within the nuclear energy programs.

Mr. DOMENICI. The subcommittee understands the importance of harbor maintenance and deepening to Savannah and Brunswick. I also appreciate the work of the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire bringing these important projects to my attention. I understand, from recent communications with the Army Corps of Engineers, that work may being on these projects as soon as possible, consistent with necessary approvals and funding. I look forward to working together to identify ways in conference by which we might be able to advance these projects. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection to the Senator from Vermont debating and discussing the issue, as he sees it. I would just like to ask, in the interest of moving things along--there are no other amendments. Everything is finished on the bill--I wonder how long the Senator from Vermont would like to discuss it. Is it possible that he might tell us?

Mr. DOMENICI. Without losing your right to the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that six second-degree amendments, which are at the desk, to amendments Nos. 629, 631, 634, 642, 645, and 646 be considered agreed to; that the first-degree amendments be agreed to, as amended; and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while we wait for Senator Jeffords, who has a very important matter to bring before the Senate, let me thank the many Senators who have cooperated in an effort to get this bill passed. We still have the issue that Senator Jeffords will raise before the Senate, but I suggest, in a bill that is about $600 million less than the President requested with reference to the nondefense part of this bill, we have done a pretty good job of covering most of the projects in this country that are needed, that the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation talk about and a number of projects in the sovereign States that our Senators, from both sides of the aisle, represent. We have done our best. We were not able to fund everything, nor were we able to fund at full dollar, and we had to reduce funding for the ongoing projects substantially in the flood line of money and projects that the Corps of Engineers has going for it. We understand that the allocations for this subcommittee, which is made up with a significant amount of defense money and a lesser amount of nondefense money, have been allocated in the House in a manner that is about $1.6 billion less than this bill. We do not know how that can ever be worked out in conference, so we are very hopeful that before the House is finished, they will do some of the things that have been done in the Senate to alleviate the pressure on committees such as the energy and water subcommittee and others. We have no assurance of that, but obviously everything is in place so that when this is passed today, if it is passed, we will be on a path to be ready for the House bill when they send it over and immediately go to conference. We will be ready to do that at the beck and call of the House to try to get this bill done at the earliest possible time. I will await the arrival of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I state here for the Record my sincere appreciation and thanks to Senator Reid, the ranking minority member, and his staff--all of them. This is a complicated bill involving everything from the deepest military needs in terms of research, in terms of development, maintenance, safekeeping of all of our nuclear weapons at our nuclear laboratories around the country, the maintenance of all the other laboratories that DOE runs, to water, inland waterways and barges and seaports and flood prevention. Many Members have an active interest. We have had to work very hard to do what we think is a reasonably good job under the circumstances. I also say to the distinguished junior Senator from New York, with reference to Brookhaven, I am totally familiar with the situation at Brookhaven. I worked on it for 2 years in a row when they had some problems up there. We worked with the administration and the Department. Clearly, if they qualify for the Worker Transition Program, we ought to be able to handle it administratively. The Department ought to be able to do that. I say to Senator Reid, I will be there helping wherever I can. I am very grateful we did not have to have a vote on this issue, because I think we would have had to object to it. I think it is much better that it be handled administratively. If they are entitled to it, they will get it because the program is already there. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague from Idaho yield for a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are a number of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc: Nos. 637, 638, 639, 661, 643, 630, and 633. I further ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in a couple minutes, we will be in a position where, after a few remarks, Senator Jeffords has one remaining issue. There is a package of amendments, which is already at the desk. This unanimous consent request has been checked with the minority and is satisfactory with them. Amendments Nos. 637, 638, 639, 661, 643, 630, and 633, En Bloc

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I finally ask unanimous consent that four additional first-degree amendments, which are at the desk, be considered agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all of the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Military Construction Appropriations bill provides $8.3 billion in new budget authority and $2.5 billion in new outlays for Military Construction and Family Housing programs and other purposes for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken into account, the outlays for the 2000 program total $8.8 billion. Compared to 1999 appropriations, this bill is $385 million lower in budget authority, and it is $622 million lower in outlays. This legislation provides for construction by the Department of Defense for U.S. military facilities throughout the world, and it provides for family housing for the active forces of each of the U.S. military services. Accordingly, it provides for important readiness and quality of life programs for our service men and women. The bill is within the revised section 302(b) allocation for the Military Construction Subcommittee. I commend the distinguished subcommittee Chairman, the Senator from Montana, for bringing this bill to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation. The bill provides an important and necessary increase in budget authority above the President's request for 2000. Most of the $2.8 billion increase fully funds projects that the President's request only partially funded. Because the bill supports appropriate full funding budgeting practices and because it funds highly important quality of life programs for our armed services, I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the relationship of the bill to the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. It has been suggested that we not extend it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, I commend Senator Kennedy, because he offered an amendment. It is pending. I join him in that amendment. That amendment is germane, and it takes care of the entire argument about there being a loophole, because it takes the loophole out. We didn't put the loophole in. The House did. The loophole is that the Social Security trust fund should be used only for Social Security. The House said it should also be used for Medicare. Now, the good Senator from New Jersey is saying there are no amendments possible. This amendment could be called up after cloture, and it would take that part of it out and would leave it just for Social Security. Now, senior citizens are hearing an argument that says we ought to protect both Medicare and Social Security in a proposal that is trying to take the Social Security fund and keep it for the future for senior citizens. One at a time, let's get it done. What is wrong with the other side of the aisle coming forth and debating keeping the Social Security trust fund for Social Security, not divert over and talk about Medicare, which is in committee being debated as to getting a bipartisan bill out of committee? We ought to wait for that to occur before we start talking about Medicare with Social Security. Finally, the idea that this won't work and the notion that Senator Domenici in the past has said: Let's first pay off Medicare's responsibility, let me clear that up. We were talking then about a huge cigarette tax. That is not before us. The cigarette tax was going to be spent by the President and by many on both sides of the aisle, to which I said: Before we do that, we ought to set it aside to see if Medicare needs it. That was a brand new tax. Plain and simple, if the Democrats will cooperate, which they are not going to, we will bring before the Senate and have a debate: Do you want to put 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund aside and use it only for Social Security, or do you want to save 62 percent, as the President says, for Social Security? Incidentally, to the credit of Democrats in our committee, not a single one of them voted for the President's budget, not a single one. They voted for little pieces. Even they didn't think the President's ideas were correct. Frankly, from our standpoint, we stand ready, and we say to the American senior citizens: Put the blame where it belongs. They didn't let us vote on a tough lockbox because it was too tough. We fixed it up to accommodate the Secretary; still too tough. The other side says: You can't get it done. Now we have one that is not as good, but significant, and now they say they want to take care of Medicare also. We ought to get our priorities straight. We are debating a trust fund in the Senate for Social Security money. If they want to offer amendments to change that in some way, even after cloture, they can vote on those amendments. I repeat, Senator Kennedy has handled it right. He put in an amendment already. That amendment says Social Security trust funds should only be used for Social Security. It takes Medicare out of the House bill. That is a good way to approach this legislation--not to stand up and say Republicans aren't doing anything. As a matter of fact, we came up with the toughest lockbox you could imagine. But we heard that it is too tough, too hard on future Americans, to hard on our debt, so we changed it some. Then the excuse was: We are not ready to vote on that; we need more amendments. I think the American senior citizens know what we are trying to do. I hope they know what the Democrats are trying to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing the Senate a bill that is within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $1.7 billion in new budget authority and $1.4 billion in new outlays for the operations of the U.S. Senate and joint agencies supporting the legislative branch. When House funding is added to the bill, and with outlays from prior years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $2.5 billion in budget authority and $2.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2000. The bill is $23 million in BA and $20 million in outlays below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I commend the managers of the bill for their diligent work, and I urge the adoption of the bill. Exhibit 1

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks the Senate Budget Committee scoring of the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.