Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, again this morning I will talk about energy. I hope I have an opportunity each week until we come to our senses and pass an energy bill to remind the American people one of the reasons gas prices are spiraling, one of the reasons we are skeptical about our future is the tremendously high price of crude oil. That will never be reduced until America makes a commitment, until the people of the world and the producers of oil understand the United States of America is not going to sit by and do nothing. We are going to have a comprehensive policy with one objective. That is to produce more alternatives that can be used by the American people to satisfy and supply their energy needs. That means we want to do more to produce natural gas, not sit idly by and let the demand increase and soon be dependent on foreign countries for natural gas. The occupant of the Chair comes from a State that has an abundance of natural gas. But we have to bring it to the lower 48 States. The Energy bill which we propose, that the other side of the aisle for the most part defeated, had a powerful provision which will bring natural gas from Alaska. It also had a provision that will get the maximum amount of natural gas from our sources in America. The price of gas in California this week averaged $2.27; in San Francisco, it hit $2.79; in Brooklyn, it was $2.49. Each time our citizens pump a gallon of gas in their cars, they should remember a majority of the Senators in this body, led by the Republicans, has been trying to pass a comprehensive energy legislation package. They are blocked each time by a filibuster led by the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, who, for some reason, find an excuse on every energy bill we propose. Either this must be changed, that must be changed, or this must be added--until we end up with nothing. Fellow Senators, the Energy bill is not a silver bullet to lowering the price of gasoline. It does, however, set forth a plan for the future. The Energy bill will increase domestic oil and natural gas production that helps balance supply with our growing demand. The Energy bill does a number of technical things. It removes a 2-percent oxygenate mandate that will make it easier on refineries to make gasoline that can be traded between regional markets. The Energy bill addresses the proliferation of boutique fuels. There are a number of State-specific gasoline reformulations that make refining more challenging and make marketing inefficient. We can go on and on. This bill provides basic research in hydrogen power. Many ask, How are we going to get ourselves off of this tremendous demand for gasoline and crude oil derivatives? One is hydrogen power. How do we do that without an energy bill that sets a policy of spending the research money on hydrogen power with the automobile manufacturers to come up with a solution? We try, as part of a comprehensive energy bill, I said, try as we may--we cannot satisfy the other side of the aisle. I wonder if they really want an energy bill. I am beginning to think it is their way or no way. They might even think the President of the United States might be helped too much with an energy bill. I hope that is not true. The benefits are being denied to the American people. Some people want to kick the political football around and they hope they can score a touchdown. We are actually going to score in higher energy prices-- and higher energy prices hurt the economy. I am a football fan. But that is one touchdown I don't want to see scored. Right now we are focusing on high gasoline prices. High gasoline prices are tied to the price of oil. What has been making the price climb? We know there is huge demand in the world led by China, which is gobbling oil like you would think there was no end to the supply. In addition, there is a risk factor being built into the price because of terrorism and the vulnerability of oil production. There is a risk factor that is causing those who produce and sell it on the world market to not go rock bottom but to go as high as they can because they are afraid of terrorism. We have to be hopeful that the cartel and those who are producing oil, who are listening to our President, some of whom have been friends of America, we are hopeful they will see the light of day, that this price they are forcing on the world is not good for them, either; it is bad for their friends; it is bad for the world. Ultimately, it is not good for the producing countries. Our President is taking a leadership role with reference to the energy-producing countries. He is trying to cajole, to talk to them, to work on them so they will increase production and hopefully bring down the price of oil. Some want to embarrass the President by offering resolutions directing him to do what he is doing. Some want to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as if that reserve, which is there for emergencies, could, in fact, help with these high oil prices. The last time we tried, it affected gasoline prices by 1 cent. Do we want to reduce the emergency oil we have and then find in a few months the terrorists do something and we are short of oil and then we have a real problem because of it? SPR was for that kind of situation. Perhaps people forgot the last time Iran cut a little bit of the supply to the world, America was affected in a dramatic way. That caused us to build SPR so we could never be immediately cut off and immediately forced to have our economy disrupted by a challenge from outside. Why do we want to risk that when the consequences will be very little? Maybe some think they can blame an economic downturn, because of high energy prices, on President Bush. They will not succeed. President Bush's economic policy has brought America from a recession to a vibrant, growing economy. Its gross domestic product increases are the highest in 20 years--not 2 years, not 5 years, in 20 years. So they are not going to deny that by filibustering an energy bill. But I can tell you, the purpose of debating in the Senate is to let the American people know who is responsible for what. And I don't know what to do. We have tried everything with reference to getting an energy bill. Maybe we ought to ask the Democrats to sit down and talk about what they need. I am not sure we could get anything out of that because I am not sure they know. Because it seems to me anything we try just cannot get anywhere because one group or another, principally on the other side of the aisle, seems to find fault; and there we go, we get nothing done. Now, we have some who want to investigate the oil companies because of the prices. I have, in this statement, a list of the investigations that have occurred and who has done them. They are powerful, neutral bodies that have done them. They did one for California because their prices went skyrocketing. Nobody can find collusion or price fixing. What has happened is the world demand is monstrous, and the cartel and others that are not part of it want to hold supply down to let prices go up. And what do we do? We sit here in the U.S. Congress, wring our hands, and complain and worry and talk about President Bush needing a plan. Look, he gave us a plan. If you want to argue about how he did it, go ahead, but look at it and see what it will do. For the most part, the things in that plan are exactly what America needs. We need to maximize our own production of oil. It will not be sufficient, but we can do some things. We need to maximize the production of natural gas. We need to maximize the potential use of coal. We need to build every alternative into our national plan. Wind energy and solar energy need the incentives that are required. And, yes, in the end we have to put some incentives in to get started with nuclear again. But we do not have to have all of these. We need the basics. You cannot even get those done. So from my standpoint, I hope we will quit blaming, quit wringing our hands, quit talking, especially on the other side of the aisle, about what we need to do, when, in fact, they are denying the very things they say we need to do by not voting for the things they are talking about. In fact, I think we could go through the Record and find that many on the other side have gotten up and made speeches about what we need to do, and you could go down and tick them off, and most of them are in the Energy bill. Most of the things they talk about are in the Energy bill, but for some reason they would rather talk about it than vote for it. They would rather talk about it than offer amendments and get the thing going. I think what we ought to do soon is offer a bill and offer a unanimous consent suggestion that we put it up here and we have 10 amendments on each side and then we proceed to vote. I think that would be a fair way to handle the energy crisis of America. It would say, quit fooling around. You get 10 amendments. That ought to be enough to get your purposes out there. We get 10. Then it is over with, and we vote. But I am sure if you tried that, every excuse in the world would be forthcoming. Nobody will say: We need an energy bill. Let's do something. They will say: Oh, no, it doesn't have this. There is a chance, a risk we will get hurt. They won't take care of this and they won't take care of that and we will get nowhere. So I close by saying I was also privileged to hear the President speak this morning. The Senator from Texas talked about it. I, frankly, have nothing but admiration for his fortitude, his strength, and his determination. I think if the United States and its people can quickly assess the blame with reference to the prisons and get on with letting our President and the military people stabilize Iraq and let them begin to decide their future as free people who do not have to worry about getting killed, the sooner we can let that happen, the sooner America will be back on the right track. But I am not sure that everybody in this country wants to get that over.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I close by saying I would hope that as we prepare to go out for recess, everybody in this body will examine their conscience, examine their positions, and that maybe they can come back and say: Let's sit down. Let's get an energy bill. Let's get the maximum kind of flexibility for production of alternatives in this country. Let's see if we can't make the American electric energy grid more powerful, stronger, more reliable, and see that it can grow and prosper. It is our future. How we energize it is our challenge. We cannot do it with natural gas alone. We have to have alternatives. That is what we had proposed. We must decide that we are going to try. I chose this committee--left the Budget Committee--because I knew how important this was, but, frankly, I never thought there would be so many people who wanted to make it so hard for us to get an energy policy as has happened. I could not believe it, as a veteran Senator. Frankly, I am amazed there are still those on the other side who want to blame somebody, want to tell us what we ought to do but do not want to vote for anything. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for 30 seconds?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I heard your remarks, and I do want to say to the Senator, that while I do not know your overall feelings about an energy bill, I will say on a couple of very difficult issues that I think are very important that were contentious--and many people on your side did not think we ought to do--you stood tall because you understand that we need diversification and you are not afraid to make votes. And I thank you for that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on this Memorial Day, I encourage my fellow New Mexicans to take a few moments to remember those Americans who have given their lives in the name of freedom. The freedom we enjoy today remains only because of their courage and unselfish sacrifice. American men and women, throughout our Nation's history, have fought and died because they believed in their country and believed in preserving its immeasurable blessings. Many gave their lives for her in a far away land, and failed to make it back to the country or family they loved. With this upcoming remembrance, I am reminded of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes gave us some of the best thoughts, and his speech and writings, as a whole, will always be among the best of their kind. On May 30, 1884, Holmes delivered a Memorial Day address before John Sedgwick Post No. 4, Grand Army of the Republic. The address reflected on the Civil War and during his address he focused on a question posed to him by a young man, about why people still kept up Memorial Day. In his wonderful style he gave attention why Memorial Day is what it is. He said, ``Not the answer that you and I should give to each other- not the expression of those feelings that, so long as you live, will make this day sacred to memories of love and grief and heroic youth-- but an answer which should command the assent of those who do not share our memories, and in which we of the North and our brethren of the South could join in perfect accord. . . . but Memorial Day may and ought to have a meaning also for those who do not share our memories.'' One month ago on April 29, 2004, the National World War II Memorial opened for public view. The memorial is the first national memorial dedicated to all who served during the WWII. The formal dedication will take place this Memorial Day weekend as a service and tribute to members of the World War II generation, and to share their memories. The memorial honors all military veterans of the war, the citizens of the time that stayed on the home front, and the America's moral purpose that ultimately warranted our nation's involvement. The memorial was authorized by Congress in 1993, and this year's Memorial Day celebration on the National Mall will culminate a long effort to honor America's World War II generation. I take a quick moment to thank my friend former Majority Leader Bob Dole, a wounded and decorated WWII veteran who served in this body, for chairing the World War II Memorial Commission and for giving countless hours to this wonderful work. It has been nearly 59 years since the end of World War II. However, I think it is safe to say that from 1939 to 1945, when every major power in the world was involved in a worldwide conflict--those times, like the Civil War, were some of our nation's toughest. We live in a remarkably different world today, but Memorial Day has kept many memories. At this moment in America's history, our men and women in uniform are engaged in conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve with the same courage and commitment shown by Americans of generations past, and they deserve our thoughts and prayers. From the Bataan Peninsula to beaches of Normandy, from the Ia Drang Valley to Inchon, from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to the North Apennine Mountains of Italy, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and many other conflicts too numerous to mention, American men and women have fought and died because of their love of country. I am proud that we have kept up Memorial Day. This one, in particular, brings significant meaning and a special time to remember and reflect. I pay a special tribute today to those who have fallen during the two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including those from my home state of New Mexico: CPT Tamara Archuleta of Los Lunas; Marine CPL Aaron Austin of Lovington; SrA Jason Cunningham of Carlsbad; Army SP James Pirtle of La Mesa; and Marine PFC Christopher Ramos of Albuquerque. As we enjoy this holiday weekend with our family and friends, let us take some time to recognize the valor with which so many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have fought when called upon by their country. Finally, may our United States continue to be blessed and may America forever remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water is the life's blood for New Mexico. When the water dries up in New Mexico, so will many of its communities. As such, the scarcity of water in New Mexico is a dire situation. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NM OSE) lacks the tools necessary to undertake the Herculean task of effectively managing New Mexico's water resources. Today, I introduce legislation that would allow New Mexico to make informed decisions about its limited water resources. In order to effectively perform water rights administration, as well as comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries, the State Engineer is statutorily required to perform assessments and investigations of the numerous stream systems and ground water basins located within New Mexico. However, the NM OSE is ill equipped to vigorously and comprehensively undertake the daunting but critically important task of water resource planning. At present, the NM OSE lacks adequate resources to perform necessary hydrographic surveys and data collection. As such, ensuring a future water supply for my home state requires that Congress provide the NM OSE with the resources necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. The bill I introduce today would create a standing authority for the State of New Mexico to seek and receive technical assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological Survey. It would also provide the NM OSE the sum of $12.5 million in federal assistance to perform hydrologic models of New Mexico's most important water systems. This bill would provide the NM OSE with the best resources available when making crucial decisions about how best preserve our limited water stores. Ever decreasing water supplies in New Mexico have reached critical levels and require immediate action. The Congress cannot sit idly by as water shortages cause death to New Mexico's communities. I hope the Senate will give this legislation its every consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water is the life's blood for New Mexico. When the water dries up in New Mexico, so will many of its communities. As such, the scarcity of water in New Mexico is a dire situation. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NM OSE) lacks the tools necessary to undertake the Herculean task of effectively managing New Mexico's water resources. Today, I introduce legislation that would allow New Mexico to make informed decisions about its limited water resources. In order to effectively perform water rights administration, as well as comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries, the State Engineer is statutorily required to perform assessments and investigations of the numerous stream systems and ground water basins located within New Mexico. However, the NM OSE is ill equipped to vigorously and comprehensively undertake the daunting but critically important task of water resource planning. At present, the NM OSE lacks adequate resources to perform necessary hydrographic surveys and data collection. As such, ensuring a future water supply for my home state requires that Congress provide the NM OSE with the resources necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. The bill I introduce today would create a standing authority for the State of New Mexico to seek and receive technical assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological Survey. It would also provide the NM OSE the sum of $12.5 million in federal assistance to perform hydrologic models of New Mexico's most important water systems. This bill would provide the NM OSE with the best resources available when making crucial decisions about how best preserve our limited water stores. Ever decreasing water supplies in New Mexico have reached critical levels and require immediate action. The Congress cannot sit idly by as water shortages cause death to New Mexico's communities. I hope the Senate will give this legislation its every consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman for accommodating me and I thank the Senate for listening for a few minutes. I was not here in person when Senator Byrd spoke about the need for an energy policy but I heard most of it. I will share with the Senate the reality of the energy problem in the United States. I heard the distinguished Senator from West Virginia speak about issues such as electricity, the blackout that occurred, the shortage of crude oil that we have to import, natural gas problems, and all of those kinds of issues. I suggest it is wonderful to have somebody come to the Senate, especially from that side of the aisle, and talk about these problems and the need to do something about it, because the truth is, they have prevented the Senate from doing it. The very things he spoke of are in one or the other of the Energy bills we have put before the Senate and been denied. Most of the time the denial was because very few Democrats would support it. So we did not get alternative fuels, so we did not get a fix to electricity blackout potential, we did not get a bill that produces huge quantities of American natural gas, we did not get a bill that fixed electricity so we would not have blackouts--on and on and on, all the issues and more that were spoken of by the distinguished Senator Byrd. To talk about the fact that our country needs them or that the President did not do them is to forget, in a short period of time--it did not take long to forget--that all of these proposals have been voted down by the Democrats in this Senate. Maybe there were other things in the bill they did not like, but I have never had anyone propose that if we change this and added that from that side of the aisle we could get a major energy bill. All we have heard is a filibuster and a vote against it. One time they claimed there was a provision that was onerous to them and we got 58 votes and lost a filibuster. We removed that provision which they said was onerous. We then tried the bill without it. And let's go again on the issues: huge production of American natural gas, some quick, some over time; a fix to the blackout problem; incentives for the electric grid to grow and prosper; incentives so we will have wind, which is right on the verge of becoming a major source--wind electricity--solar energy; and on and on. There are incentives for all those. When you add them up, it was a comprehensive bill that fixed what was broken, added things we needed, and ultimately said to the world: America is ready to do something. They have finally stood up. And where there are no solutions, they did not find them. Anybody who thinks we could have a solution to produce more crude oil, step up. The only way we know is to tell Americans to use small cars. That would save gasoline. We tried it. The Senate is not for it. The House is not for it. I tried it in crowds. People are not for it. So that is the only one. It is out of the way. So what can we do? We have to take care of the other energy sources. We have to make sure we do not get natural gas dependent, which we are about to be. We should tell the world we have alternatives to produce electricity. And we do, if we pass one of these bills. The problem is not that the President took too long, not that the President did not send us a proposal or that he did something in secret. We did our bill in public. So regardless of what you claim about him, we had an energy bill. We have an energy bill. As a matter of fact, I will offer it again before this session is out. I understand somebody wants to put energy on this Armed Services authorization bill. Have at it. We will let you vote on the Energy bill at the same time. We will let you do that, and we will stand up and say: Are you ready or do you want to talk? Do you want to increase natural gas or do you want to blame somebody? Do you want to increase wind energy in America or do you want to complain? I understand somebody around here wants to offer an amendment that we ought to fix this oil problem with the SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I was talking about that with my staff--and I would not do this, at least as of now--but I am thinking about it. I say to the Senator, Jon, what we ought to do is we ought to offer an amendment, when they offer that, and say that we want bin Laden to turn himself in; a resolution: We resolve that--after this, that, and the other--he ought to turn himself in to America. Why would I do that? Because that is about as apt to happen as we are apt to save anything on the price of gasoline with an amendment that says: Use SPR. We tried it once. It saved 1 cent. It is there because we are in jeopardy. If somebody has a major explosion, a terrorist action, we need that SPR to take care of us. That is what it is for. That is why it ought to stay there. That is why it ought to be filled. So if I sound like I am concerned, I am, because I get tired of people saying we need an energy policy and then voting against the very things they talk about. I understand some Senators are opposed to specific pieces. We are open minded and ready to talk. If there are people who say, the way to get what we are talking about and complaining about is this, that, and the other, we listen. But until they have one, we want to continue to ask them to vote for an energy bill that is almost the same as their rhetoric, that almost does as much as their rhetoric asks for.

Mr. DOMENICI. Every time this comes up, I will come down here and go through this laundry list, and ask them where they have been. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I can offer this amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their cooperation and their statements. I am not sure Senator Levin is presently a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DOMENICI. And Senator Warner has already asked.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is it in order?

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree. I thank the Senator for his comments. Let me say again, for purposes of discussion, I think we ought to have a resolution--if the Democrats offer a resolution regarding SPR-- that says two things. I think the resolution ought to say: We think and we direct that Saudi Arabia pump more oil and sell more oil. The Senate says we resolve that they ought to do that. And, second, we think the terrorist we have been looking all over Afghanistan for should turn himself in. That should be the second part of our resolution. Why I say that is because we would do as much for the energy crisis with that resolution as we will with one that tries to convince the American people that the way to do this is to play around with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me get it.

Mr. DOMENICI. But does that mean it still might be up there?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am shortly going to send the amendment to the desk. It has about 15 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This amendment has to do with accelerating internationally the removal of fissile materials; that is, insecure radiological material and related equipment that cause us to be vulnerable to proliferation. Many of us have worked very hard to put together a program where we and other nations will go to work at ridding the world of proliferation of nuclear products from the nuclear age. We think it is an exciting approach. Eventually, we have to fund it and Presidents have to implement it. But the Senate would be saying today it is good policy to get the world concerned about getting rid of radioactive material that came from the nuclear age. My principal cosponsors are Senators Feinstein, Lugar, Biden, Bingaman, and a whole array of Senators. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, I have recognized the danger posed by the potential risk of proliferation of materials or expertise from that nation. Through work with Senators Nunn and Lugar for the original Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction legislation, and later with the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, I have worked to minimize this risk. Through these bills, and through several other initiatives, we have made progress on the nonproliferation front. But these are complex and difficult programs, success is measured in small steps. While we have come a long ways, we still have a long ways to go. Some of the programs we have established, such as materials protection control and accounting, the initiatives for proliferation prevention, and the nuclear cities initiative, are working fairly well to address some of the major threat issues. The HEU Deal is working to reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, a prime concern for proliferation, although it has needed congressional help at times to keep it alive. The plutonium disposition deal is seriously stalled and needs attention at the highest levels in both the United States and Russia. Even though we are making progress, the focus on terrorism over the last few years has substantially amplified the level of our concerns. In the process, we have learned more about the complicated routes through which important equipment technologies, such as enrichment capabilities, have moved to unfortunate destinations. Our focus on Russia was appropriate a decade ago. But it is very clear today that proliferation must be viewed as a global problem. We must broaden our programs so that they have a global impact, not only focused on the former Soviet Union. The increased threat of terrorism should encourage us to seek new ways to expedite the management, security, and disposition of materials that could be dangerous to our national security if they were to fall into the wrong hands. These materials include a range of fissile materials, with highly enriched uranium and plutonium being the ones of greatest concern. Fissile materials and the specialized equipment to produce them aren't the only concerns. We have also heard concerns about radiological dispersion devices, or ``dirty bombs'' as they are usually called. Materials that would be useful in dirty bombs also need to be under far better control all around the world. The amendment I am offering today is aimed at expediting global cleanout of nuclear materials and equipment that could represent proliferation risks. It includes in one package a range of authorizations, all of which need acceleration toward the overall goal. Of greatest importance, it provides authorization for global activities, not only for activities focused on the former Soviet Union. And it encourages that we act in partnership with other governments, nongovernmental organizations, and other international groups that can assist us in this undertaking. Fissile materials are targeted no matter where they are located, from existing vulnerable storage sites to research reactors to other reactor systems. The highly enriched uranium that fuels many of these research reactors, including those supplied by both the United States and Russia, represents a major concern for proliferation. Recent operations have led to removal of some of these materials, but many more reactors need attention. As one example of a potential concern beyond the research reactors, the Russian ice breakers are powered with nuclear reactors using highly enriched uranium. I hope we can help to convert those reactors in the course of this program. Authorities are provided to transport materials to secure storage, either here or abroad, along with provision of improved security at vulnerable sites. In addition, attention is paid to the operation of improved security systems once they are installed. Technical support is authorized for the International Atomic Energy Agency or other countries to help in removal of material or upgrading of security. In addition, several initiatives address some of the current uses of highly enriched uranium. New fuels are to be developed to replace fuels that use highly enriched uranium. New reactor targets are to be developed to replace targets that involve highly enriched uranium. And assistance with conversion of both reactors and targets to these new alternatives is provided. Faster blend-down of highly enriched uranium is included in the new provisions. It is vital to get more of this material out of a weapons- ready form more quickly than only relying on the rates of blend-down established in the existing HEU deal. The amendment also authorizes assistance in closure and decommissioning of sites of proliferation concern. In addition, programs are authorized for helping displaced employees from such sites and converting these sites to other uses. We have had similar programs in place for the former Soviet Union for years, but now with this amendment we can extend these programs to other countries as well. With this global cleanout amendment, we will take a giant step toward providing the Department of Energy, in coordination with other Federal agencies, with the tools they need to minimize proliferation risks from nuclear materials wherever they are found around the world. In the process, we can help to make this world a safer place.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. They have already agreed on mine and it will take 3 minutes. I don't doubt that.

Mr. DOMENICI. What?