Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the Senator raising these issues, and I urge the Department to carefully consider his thoughtful comments and recommendations.

Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the situation faced by those around Lake Sakakawea, and I will work with you to address this problem as we move this bill to the Energy and Water Appropriations conference. section 310

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when we called this bill up, we called up the House version. I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of Calendar No. 213, S. 1424, the Senate committee-reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments; provided that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, the energy and water appropriations bill, as reported out unanimously by the subcommittee and Committee on Appropriations, is pending. One amendment--there may be others--we are awaiting is a Feinstein, et al., amendment to be offered and debated. I don't believe it serves any purpose for the Senator from New Mexico to discuss the issue until the amendment is offered. As a consequence, I am going to yield the floor and put in a quorum call, with the full understanding that Senator Feinstein intends to offer shortly her amendment. And from what I understand, an hour later, at about 3:30, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is going to speak in support of the Feinstein amendment. In between those, I will speak, and there may very well--either this afternoon before we recess and go into morning business, or early in the morning--be other Senators on either side who might want to speak to this issue. I am not totally aware of that. It is not the intention of the Senator from New Mexico that we go on indefinitely. This is a well-known amendment. We voted on something like it already once. But this is different in some respects. It is appropriations. So in that context, it is actual money instead of authorizing. Having said that, everyone should now know the bill that is pending is the Senate-reported energy and water bill. All of you who had water projects that you asked about, you can have your staff look to see if you were successful. We have attempted to advise most of you. I can say that to the extent we have had to be arbitrary because of a shortage of money, it has principally been when we have somebody asking for a new authorization. We haven't been able to do that in this bill. With respect to the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, we haven't started any new programs. So if you asked us for that, you may say: Gee, they didn't treat me right. It may be that you have to come and ask, and that is the reason. It is not a new authorization. We have tried our very best to do what we could with a shortage of money in the Corps, which I have already explained to the Senate. I explain it every year. We could pull the record player out and repeat it because every year Presidents do the same thing. They leave out projects, and they don't put in enough money. And then we come along and we have the most desired projects of all because if you are chairman Senators stuff your pockets with requests. They come in saying: Please help with this. It is a little project in my State. But it seems as though we are the only ones who understand how important these little projects are to Senators. It doesn't seem as though the administration--this one, other ones--thinks it is very important. They are not all in here. But a few more than the President was able to put in are here in this bill. So please look. And if you have any complaints, bring them to us. We will do our best. We will even explain to you, if we turned you down, that it is a new project. We will explain what that means and why we have no alternative. When we can't pay for the ones we have, we can't be adding any new ones. I note the presence of the Senator from California. Whether she desires to offer the amendment is up to her. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can we get the yeas and nays?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't know how much time I will take but obviously some amount of time. There are a number of other Senators on our side who wish to speak but I want to speak to this amendment. First, fellow Americans and friends here, there are a lot of issues that the wonderful Senator from California talked about that deserve some real clarification. There is an inference that we are not interested in nonproliferation and that we are going in the wrong direction. Everybody should know that the United States of America not too many years ago had 40,000 nuclear weapons. We are moving rapidly toward 5,000--40,000 moving rapidly toward 5,000. In fact, both the United States and the former Soviet Union are having difficulty getting rid of what comes out of these nuclear weapons because they are moving so fast. That which is coming out of them is creating proliferation itself because we are moving so rapidly. We do not know what to do with the plutonium that comes out of them. The Russians don't know where to put it. But in terms of getting rid of nuclear weapons, the United States is on a path from 40,000--and I can't give you the classified number but I can tell you it is 5,000 or less. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2: The pit--the plural ``pits'' is not a very nice sounding word--is an absolutely necessary incremental part of a nuclear weapon. Without a pit, there is no nuclear weapon--none. The United States is not engaged in producing new weapons but, rather, is seeing to it that we make sure what we have will work. That is called science-based stockpile stewardship, which means about 6 or 8 years ago we voted to have no more nuclear underground testing. There is nothing in this amendment that says we are going to break that. If it was, we would be up here arguing that we are here to break the agreement that the United States has. The Senate voted, then the House followed, and the President signed. It was Mark Hatfield who offered the amendment. It passed here as a consequence. We are not involved in underground testing. I repeat: We are not involved. This amendment would strike a provision--let us take them one at a time--that says over there in Nevada there is a great operation wherein we used to do underground testing. It is huge. It is complex in nature. We said in the Senate when we put our blood on the line, no more testing. That is a vote far from unanimous. We said, we will always keep that Nevada desert test site ready for tests. Did we say that because we planned a new generation of nuclear weapons? Of course not. We said that because there is a huge risk to America in the science-based stockpile stewardship as a method of assuring the validity of our nuclear weapons. There are scientists in America who at their own expense would come and tell us it will not work. In a few years, you will not know whether your weapons will work or not. That is why we said, keep Nevada ready. All this amendment says--and it is high time; we should have done it 4 or 5 years ago--spend a little bit of money, less than $20 million, and begin to make the Nevada Test Site ready so instead of taking 3 years to get it ready for a test, we get it ready in 18 months. That is all it says. Incidentally, Senator Feinstein, we are both worried about our grandchildren. We probably cannot decide who loves our grandchildren more. At this time in my life, I have twice as many plus three, so if you are worried about your five, I am worried about my 13. But I am clearly not worried that this amendment, the language you are striking, this funding, has any chance of harming my grandchildren. That is an absolute myth. Does making the Nevada Test Site capable of conducting an underground test ready in 18 months endanger the children of America? Fellow Senators, there is a valid argument it helps the future of our children and America's future to have it ready on 18 months' notice instead of 3 years. That part does not belong in this amendment and should not be stricken. It should be in this bill. We should make Nevada modern so if we need it, we use it, not 3 years after we decide we need a test because we have some idea there is something amiss in some of our weapons which are 35, 40, and 45 years old. Our nuclear weapons are that old. And we are saying, they will work. We used to test them. But now we have these great scientists and the laboratories--two of them in my State--and they are doing it by assimilation. And they are saying, we think they will work. Then the Senator talks about the planning or a plant to manufacture pits for the nuclear weapons. Fellow Senators, we need to manufacture pits for the weapons we have, not the weapons someone is dreaming we will build. There is nothing in this law that says we will build one additional nuclear weapon. Does the Senator know that every country which has nuclear weapons has spare pits, extra pits, to make sure they will never run short--except one country. This country. We have no spare pits. I don't want to infer it is the end of the world. It is just a fact. For those who think we could make a new nuclear weapon and break all our agreements, they have to know right now we do not have a spare pit to put in a nuclear weapon. And the world knows it. Senator Domenici is not giving any secrets to anyone. It is a truism. For 8 years we have been fooling around with funding at Los Alamos to see if we can make a pit. I regret to say it has been one terribly tough job. I cannot state today--and I know as much as anyone-- whether they have produced one that meets all the test requirements. Frankly, it is the only place in America that if tomorrow we said, Get a pit, we need to replace one, one of our nukes needs a new pit, it is the only place to look to. What in the world is wrong with an administration that says the time has come to build a manufacturing center for pits? The good Senator from California ties it into the fact that she thinks it is for a new generation of nuclear weapons. Where is the authority to build a nuclear weapon? Read this law we are funding and tell me where there is authority to build a new nuclear weapon. This Senate would have to stand up and vote to build a new nuclear weapon. Believe you me, it would be a bigger day of debate than this particular afternoon in the Senate. It would be a red-letter day when the United States sends to the Senate floor a proposal to build more nuclear weapons. And it is not this day. That is not what we are doing. There is not one single word that says we are going to build a new nuclear weapon. So two proposals the Senator is talking about in this language, the fear for the future and what we are going to do to the world: In building pits for the future we are going to do nothing to the world. They are already wondering why we have not built them. That is what others are wondering. They are asking, What is the matter with America? We want to begin a plan. I am not sure when they bring the plans that I am going to agree to as big a plant as they want. Maybe we will build a little plant. But this says, begin the planning and designing. It provides not one penny for construction, nor does it decide where this place to build pits will be. Do they need it now? It could wait. But we have been waiting pretty long--for 9 years, maybe 10. The planners ask what is going on, why can't we build one? We keep asking scientists to build it at Los Alamos, but that is not a production center. They do not have the facilities. They have built the facilities and I have seen them. It is more like a science lab than a manufacturing plant. One could say, let them keep doing it that way. I don't like it and I don't think anyone planning for the future thinks it is a very good idea to plan for our future in terms of replacements at Los Alamos. That leaves the part of this amendment wherein we agreed with the Senate. We already voted in this Senate on these issues. We voted affirmatively in the Senate on these issues in the armed services authorizing bill. We already voted on every one of these issues. The nuclear posture review suggested the credibility of our nuclear deterrence is dependent upon flexibility and adaptive production complexes, ones that would be able to fix safety or performance problems on aging stockpiles as they arise. The Senate bill does that. The Nuclear Posture Review suggests we should keep our nuclear scientists engaged and thinking about the nuclear stockpile of the future and what it should look like. Might I repeat, the Nuclear Posture Review suggests we should keep our nuclear scientists--the greatest in the world, excited about their work, living at one of three great laboratories--engaged and thinking about what the nuclear stockpile of the future should look like. It does not commit us to build any new weapons. And there is no money in this bill to build new weapons. Let me repeat, there is no money in this bill to build new weapons. It suggests that our scientists should remain flexible, that we should not have to have them worried all the time whether thinking about certain aspects of a nuclear weapon of the future is a violation of the law or not. They should be permitted to think about--based upon what we have learned, what we know about both our friends and our enemies and war so far, and what people are creating in the world--they should be able to think and design and posture, but not build a single new weapon, whether it be one the Senator from California talks about in terms of tactical weapons--I do not even know where that comes into this thinking. There is no authority for tactical weapons in this bill, in this money, as the Senator in the chair knows. There was nothing in the authorizing committee that said that. There is much more to say, but I believe I have done my best, in a few moments, to dispose of the idea that America is on a path that will cause the world to start rebuilding new nuclear bombs in anyone's stockpile to react to our improving the Nevada weapons site. The idea that any country is going to react by saying, ``We are going to go do something now and build more bombs because they are getting Nevada ready,'' is an absurdity. It has no logic to it. We should never have let it go to 3 years. That is what it takes to get ready to test one there--not test a new one, to test one we have, to test one if science-based stockpile stewardship fails. I repeat, the other part of it is we do not want to start planning a design for a manufacturing center for pits in an inventory which would then make America have an inventory of spare parts like other countries do instead of being the only one without them. Now, if you finish those two, and then you argue the one that wants to give these engineers and scientists authority to think about what weapons might look like in the future, you have the whole substance-- the cake, the strawberries. Everything that goes with it in this amendment is encapsulated in those three ideas. Now, I have argued with many Senators. I have been in the Chamber on many issues. I have respect for some, great respect for others. The Senator from California is among those for whom I have great respect. But in this instance, the conclusions that have been drawn with reference to what is in this bill, and what was proposed by the review people of the United States who review our nuclear posture, are just not so, plain and simple. I think the Senate should not follow the House. The House, for some reason, decided to spend this money on water projects. That is fine. I say to the Senator, we would like $40 million more for water projects. But this Senator is not going to prevail and preside over a committee, because we are short of water money, that looks at these projects in the wrong way and then, in the end, says: Well, we will have $21 or $24 million more for you House Members' water projects. Not this Senator. We will put it right here. This is what this money ought to be for. We are going to vote on this bill. We are going to vote sooner rather than later. Hopefully, Senators will see it like they saw it before. A substantial majority voted yea on the authorizing bill to do this. We came along in an appropriations bill and said: The Senate told us to do this. We voted for it. So we have done what the Senate asked us to do. I hope the Senate will say: Having done what we asked you to do, we will leave the money that you put in to do what we asked you to do. We will leave it right there. We won't put it on the debt or put it in water projects. We will put it right where you asked us to put it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, what was the question? I am sorry, I did not hear it.

Mr. DOMENICI. OK.

Mr. DOMENICI. OK.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just talk with the Senator for a moment. That means I have a chance for rebuttal? Also, I say to the Senator, I wanted to tell you--I am not sure if you knew--the yeas and nays have been ordered on this amendment, and I assume you are going to debate an issue unrelated to this. How long might we expect you to speak?

Mr. DOMENICI. An hour?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, Senator Kennedy is still in the Chamber, and he asked a question of the distinguished Senator from California about the safety of our nuclear weapons. Senator Kennedy, once a year, each of three civilian men--it happens in this case they are men. I don't think there has been a woman in charge of either of the three nuclear laboratories since their inception. But, once a year, three civilians certify to the President of the United States that, to the best of their knowledge, the nuclear stockpile is intact, safe, and reliable. That has been going on for well over 60 years. But only 8 years ago, or 9, we changed the way those men concluded the weapons were safe and reliable and ready. Properly or improperly, we said no more underground testing. Prior to that, every time a certification was made to the President, it was predicated upon the single best way to determine the validity of a weapon, and that was to test it. Now we have said let us do it another way. Let us send a signal to the world we don't want to test underground. This amendment is relevant, which I will tell you about in a moment. We said to the scientists, How much money do you need to get the best equipment, including new equipment, to determine the validity of the weapons without testing? That is called science-based stockpile stewardship. There are many who do not think it will work, that we will have to return someday not for a new stockpile, but to answer that question we might have to return to testing. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has studied these issues, and he is a very involved Senator. But I spent a huge portion of my life learning this. We are going through the throes of the most incredible kind of research just to determine there is nothing wrong with the innards of a 40-year-old bomb, or 30-year-old bomb as we reduce from 40,000 to 5,000, or less, which is where we are now and heading down. Yes. The answer is if you follow that sequence, those men not too long ago told the President they are OK. But in this amendment, one portion the Senator from California strikes is a provision that could be freestanding and important. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a new weapons system. It just says bring the test site in Nevada current so it doesn't take 3 years if you make a decision to use it. One portion does that. Instead of letting that system in Nevada degenerate so that if you need it, it will take 3 years to build it up, part of this amendment says move it along so it is only 18 months. If you want to conclude that is in there because we want to build a whole new system of weapons, you can do that. But the truth is it is in there because the time has come to get it more relevant to the problems we may be confronted with in terms of one of these directors saying we had better test the weapon. Then we have to wait 3 years. Part of this amendment says no, you will only have to wait 1\1/2\ years. That part should pass under all circumstances. Why the United States House of Representatives said no, I can't understand. The Senate said yes already, overwhelmingly. This amendment would take it out and say leave it at 3 years; let the reliability kind of lie in wait in case we need it to test a weapon; let it be 3 years instead of 1\1/2\ years. The second part of this amendment: There is no use today on the floor of the Senate in terms of this amendment to talk about the fact that years ago we had 40,000 nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union had 60,000. Those are true numbers. That happened. I am not sure the last number is right, but it is plenty more than 40,000. We are on the way down substantially while three or four new countries are added that I don't think had anything to do with this amendment. Pakistan had nothing to do with this amendment as they developed their nuclear weapon. I don't believe this amendment has anything to do with the North Koreans. This amendment says get that site ready in case we have to test the weapons we own. We can get up here and talk all we want about America is already building new nuclear weapons, but it isn't true. If any Senator stands up here and says we are making new nuclear weapons and they are just little nuclear weapons, I submit they ought to ask anybody they want under oath anywhere in the Government, and the answer will be we aren't, we haven't, and we will not build a nuclear weapon until Congress says we can. Building a nuclear weapon is not in this language. Look at it. Look at every single word. See if it says you are going to build one nuclear weapon with the money in this appropriations bill. It in no way permits the building of a nuclear weapon. It does what I said about the Nevada Test Site. It says to our scientists at these laboratories, In the meantime you can study, you can research weapons of the future. And it names the kinds of things we might be looking at in the future. I submit that for a great nation to say anything to its scientists but you can do that is absolutely crazy. Do you mean we are going to tell these great scientists we don't know what is going to be here in 15 years, but you better not be studying what kind of weapons we are going to need in 15 years because we are scared of that, we think that means we are going to build new weapons? I don't believe that. I believe they ought to be permitted to study. They ought to be permitted to think. We ought to be wondering about underground chemical plants that might be building things to destroy the world. I see nothing wrong with that. I do not see that as threatening to anyone, for it builds nothing. If anything, it builds brainpower on the part of the great scientists, and that is it. The last one about a plant to manufacture pits: This request says that for the next 40 years--40 years--we may need pit replacements from time to time for our nuclear weapons. That is a given. It says let us design the complex to do that. This amendment doesn't say cut it in half, we don't want you to make it so big. We say send us the plans and we will look at them. This says don't do it. Why not do it? Every other country with nuclear weapons has spare pits, I regret to say. But for us, it doesn't mean much. Nobody has to be scared. That doesn't mean next week or next month, but it is something our experts are saying shouldn't exist too long. And we are busy trying to build a couple in a makeshift manner, to which my friend from California alludes. It is not a factory. It will not take care of 30 or 40 years of the future. It is a makeshift assembly in the city of Los Alamos as part of the research laboratory. It has been a devil of a job for them to manufacture consistent with the need for a plutonium pit for a nuclear weapon. Today we are discussing things which we hardly ever discuss. But I believe at 10 minutes of 5 on the 15th day of September on a Monday, if we were authorizing the building of new nuclear weapons, there would be a block of Senators on this floor. There would be steam heat from those who oppose it. The truth is that isn't what the amendment does. It is not an amendment that will build any new nuclear bombs. I repeat: As important as it is, and as magnificent as the Senator from California is in her presentation on September 15, it is not an amendment that has anything to do with building or not building nuclear weapons, for we are not authorizing that. It won't happen because of what we are doing. And she won't stop it from happening with her amendment because it isn't happening to begin with. Essentially, the Senator indicated it is a moral issue. That is an easy term to throw around--a moral issue. I could probably say it is a moral issue, also. I understand it in stark, objective terms. It does not frighten me a bit. As a matter of fact, I am more frightened to think of having the scientists who have manned our nuclear laboratories told they cannot think and plan for the future regardless of what their great brains say might be around the corner, over the hill, or in some decade to come, for these United States. That frightens me more and creates more of a moral issue than the issue that is not even an issue, to wit, we are building more nuclear weapons, a new arsenal, and the like. It cannot be a moral issue for me because a negative can hardly be. If you are not doing it, it does not seem to me to be an issue, moral or otherwise. That is how I see it. The Senator suspects we will win. I am not sure. If the Senate has any consistency, we should. We already won once. In fact, since then we have learned a lot more. But we have reduced it to dollars and to programs that had been authorized. It is easier to see what we are and are not doing in this amendment, in this appropriations bill, than it was when we voted in favor of the authorization bill. I am not sure how it will come out. I am not sure what will happen in the House. I guarantee if the Senate votes to go to conference with the language we have written in this bill that came out of Appropriations, we will consider it a very important issue for America's future. It will not be easy to give it away to a House that canceled it and spent the money on water projects instead of these issues. That was the outcome.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, let me answer this way: I don't believe there is a single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a single expert in the United States of America on its nuclear weapons arsenal, that if asked would they prefer that the Nevada Test Site be ready for tests in 18 months or 3 years, would not answer: 18 months; 3 years is too long. If you ask me, I will tell you. I believe there is no one who is certain that over time what we are doing is going to work and that we are not going to have to go to testing at some time. Almost everyone says that. Since they say it, I am confident they would rather have the Nevada Test Site ready in a shorter timeframe rather than longer. I thank the Senator for the question. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Kris Schaffer of my staff be given floor privileges during consideration of this Energy and water bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, while we are now on this energy-water appropriations bill, let me first thank my friend, Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, for the hard work he and his staff put into this bill. We have a great bill. The Senate will find that out in the next 2 or 3 days. I am hopeful there will only be a few amendments. We kind of know what they are. We do not intend to discuss them until those proponents come to the floor and offer them, but we know about them and we think we can have a serious debate Monday. I understand maybe we can't vote on Monday. If we can, we will, and dispose of that serious nuclear amendment--antinuclear development amendment. If not, we would do it on Tuesday. But I hope nobody intends to use this bill as a Christmas tree for authorizations. I can assure them they will meet great resistance from this Senator. This is not an authorization bill for electricity. That is somewhere else, another bill. It is in the conference. We have already voted. We will not consider that, and if we do, it will not matter because I will not bring back from conference any energy amendments that belong on the authorization bill, creating the policy for the energy future of our country. With that, I move now to the business before the Senate. Today the Senate is going to consider one of the 13 appropriations bills. It is a small one, but it is a very important one. We worked very hard this year to put together what we think is a fair bill under extremely difficult circumstances. This fiscal 2004 allocation to the subcommittee is $27 billion, an amount that is only $367 million over the President's request. This situation posed a daunting challenge to the subcommittee. Let me put that in context. All of the Members here know the President's request dramatically cut water projects. The occupant of the Chair knows that--it cut water projects well below the current year level and left out many projects we had to do. Furthermore, the President proposed to fund a portion of the Corps of Engineers budget, an amount of $145 million, in a way the Congressional Budget Office says is not permissible. If it is not permissible and we did it, it would be subject to a point of order--even though the Congressional Budget Office gives the President credit for the mechanism in this scoring request. Thus, we have included a provision that will make an additional $145 million available to the Corps to spend on the enactment of the provision in authorizing legislation that is required under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. We think that is the way to do it. But for now, the long and the short of all of this is that the President's request was $530 million below the current year level for water projects, and we only received an increase from the appropriations process of $367 million. There is nothing that Senators and House Members are more aware of than water projects in their home States. I do not know if they are as important as the Members think. But I only can tell you that if you are chairman of this committee, you cannot get by without Senators stuffing your pockets with the requests and sending them to your office, saying: Don't forget; don't forget. We have a pile of them. I didn't bring them to the floor. There are more than a few hundred. The bill spreads the increased allocation generally as follows: An additional $233 million to the Corps water projects; an additional $67 million to the Bureau of Reclamation water projects; an additional $80 million to independent regional commissions which were badly cut in the President's request, such as the Denali Regional Commission of Alaska, the Appalachia Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Commission; and we held the Department of Energy at just about the President's request level. I believe--and I think Senator Reid will agree with me--that this was the fairest way to distribute the very limited resources. It was the fairest in any sense of the word, and also in the sense of the word of what our Members expect of us and what they can expect of us in doing our job correctly. The bill provides $4.43 billion for the Corps of Engineers. That is $233 million above the President's request but $212 million below the current year's level. We have included no new construction projects and have focused our resources on restoring the cuts to existing construction projects. For the Bureau of Reclamation and related activities, the bill provides $990 million, which is $67 million above the President's request but only $17 million above the current year level. For nuclear weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration--known as NNSA--the bill provides $6.47 billion, which is $96 million more than the President's request and $492 million over the current year level. The budget increases are consistent with a major Defense Department initiative to restore our nuclear weapons complex. Mr. President, I told you when we opened the bill that it was a small bill. But it has a lot in it. It pays for the National Nuclear Security Administration. That is the laboratories and the administration. Among its charges is making sure scientifically, with the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program--meaning these laboratories have to engage in all kinds and varieties of science--that they tell us our weapons are valid without testing them. For most of our adult life we tested them, so we had no doubt. Great scientists hooked them up and the great desert provided the test site. And we tested them. But we voted to quit it. We didn't vote to stop having nuclear weapons; we just voted not to test them. Somebody has the responsibility when you stop testing them to be in a position of reporting to the Chief Executive and, thus, then to us whether the weapons are still valid. Some of them are 30 or 35 years old. I don't know whether they are 40 years old yet. But they are pretty old for nuclear weapons. So somebody has to do that. That is the work of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the laboratories, and this bill has to pay for that. For nuclear nonproliferation activities, it is important that we understand this little bill funds $1.34 billion, which is the same as the President's request, and $171 million above the current level. The committee continues its leadership role in countering nuclear terrorism. The budget request, coupled with $148 million added in last year's supplemental, gives a strong boost to this highly important program. When we speak of terror in the world, we now have almost stopped talking about nuclear terrorism because we speak so much about biological terrorism and chemical terrorism. But we cannot forget that the granddaddy of all terrorist activities is a nuclear terrorist activity. Nonproliferation is the effort of our Government to try to keep the things that people might use for nuclear weapons or to keep them out of the hands of those who might put them together and use them. That is a big job. This is a little bill with a lot of money--$1.34 billion for that effort. We have great laboratory people engaged in that. Then there is the ``Isn't good news provision.'' We have been paying to clean up energy sites for many years. These are the sites that remained from the cold-war era in the development of nuclear weapons and plutonium in various parts of America, such as the Savannah River area, areas in the west coast and Washington--environmental cleanup sites. This bill provides an incredible amount of money--$7.6 billion. But believe it or not, that is $62 million below the President's request. For the first time in many years, it is less than the previous year-- $238 million less. The subcommittee was not required to add huge additional amounts to maintain cleanup budgets around the country. This is an unknown--almost secret--success of this Department of Energy. They said they would do it when they took office, but they have been saying it as they took office in that Department for 12 years, that I am aware of, and each year it was more--not less. We finally have a couple of projects--led by one in Colorado--which have timeframes for completion which is credible and near at hand. There are some that are going to go on for a long time. But at least since this money comes out of the defense of our country, the Defense Department might be hopeful that as they increase their defense dollars we will not have to suck away large amounts to pay for this cleanup, although I am not yet making that as a promise because there are a few of these sites for which we are not absolutely certain how long it will take and how much it will cost. But they have become extremely, extremely expensive sites with thousands of people employed. The frustration level for a Senator such as me paying for it year after year is very high. I didn't think the cleanup sites were supposed to be public works projects. I thought they were supposed to be cleanup sites. But there is a lot of justification and a lot of reasoning, and we are not responsible for all of them. But some of them we have to fix, and we are trying. Then there is a great issue in the State of my friend, Harry Reid, of Yucca Mountain. The project at Yucca causes the Senate to provide $425 million for 2004 construction. That is $166 million below the President's request, and $32 million less than the current level. But this project will be a major point of contention in conference with the House, which has increased the project by $180 million over the request. This is a very important matter to many members of the subcommittee, each for various reasons, and it will require additional work as we move through the process. For renewable energy research and development, believe it or not, we even found the money--$459 million, which is $15 million more than the President's request and $40 million more than this year--for renewables. The committee funds the President's new hydrogen technology initiative. For nuclear energy research and development, the bill provides $437 million, which is $447 million above the President's request and $63 million over a comparable current bill level. The Members know this is a great priority of mine as we continue to make investments. I believe it will eventually result in the construction of a new commercial power reactor, or more than one, in the United States. We will provide a total of $35 million toward the development of a new reactor in Idaho that could produce both electricity and hydrogen. We are not alone in this goal and in this kind of project. Japan is on the way. Japan is substantially ahead in terms of a timeframe for hydrogen engines in automobiles. Yet it is not something that will happen quickly. It is a few years away even for them, like 10, and, who knows, more than that for us. But we had better get started since we know we are hugely dependent upon oil from foreign countries. Basic research for the Department of Energy: $3.36 billion, which is $50 million above the President and $88 million above this year. We talk about research. We had a big debate last night about research at the National Institutes of Health, a huge debate. We are researching the human body and the ways we might give health where the bodies are sick and find solutions to illnesses that besiege us. We are spending a huge amount of money in that field. I think the figure was well over the $25 billion mark. The other agency that does research, but in physics and other sciences, is the Department of Energy. We do not treat it right; we only have $3.36 billion. That is $88 million more than last year for all of their research. The bill provides $48.5 million for the Denali Commission, $58 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and $7 million for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $5 million over the President's request and $1 million below the current year level. The bill also provides a total budget of $619 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the budget request and an increase of $41 million over the current year level. Given the overall constraints, we worked hard but were unfortunately limited to accommodating only the highest priority requests of Members where possible. This is going to be a difficult year, but I look forward to the recommendations of other Members. Finally, the Senate should be fully aware that the committee reported bill includes a provision regarding the Middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico. The provision does two things. First it prohibits the use of outer-basin water for endangered species purposes. Second, it establishes how the Endangered Species Act will be complied with for this river and the affected fish. This is a very important provision that has the bipartisan support in the New Mexico delegation and at the state level. Before I yield to the floor and my Ranking Member for his statement, I would like to thank him and his excellent staff for all the effort he has put forth in getting this bill put together.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his kind remarks. I think he knows that for each and every comment he made, I have nothing but reciprocal feelings toward him. I thank him for his hard work and for working with me to get this good bill. There are two things in this bill that are always misunderstood, and administration after administration makes it difficult. One is the Corps of Engineers. It is kind of amazing, whenever we get in trouble and we want somebody to build something for us someplace overseas, the Corps of Engineers is asked to supervise it and manage it and hire the people and the contractors--whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. And then at home, every President cuts the Corps of Engineers and leaves us in a position where we cannot sustain those numbers. So we have a bill that gets more difficult all the time. This year, the President didn't do as badly; nonetheless, the same sequence was followed. We are trying to fix it somewhat. It has put us in the position where we cannot quite do it. We will be talking with other people in the Senate about some very serious emergency matters, which are not covered here, that we might very much have the Senate consider putting in this bill. Second, people don't know we run three giant nuclear laboratories. That means we have to keep the best scientists in the world and their families living in the area, especially Los Alamos, which is a city built only for nuclear. That means we have to modernize because scientists are living in modern times. They want to work in modern facilities, not 50-year-old buildings. We are in the process of modernizing the workplace in Los Alamos in particular. Some don't understand that that is a must. We have to spend money to do it. In addition, as part of maintaining a rigorous core of nuclear weapons, there are certain scientific activities these laboratories have to do, so they are always on the cutting edge in terms of keeping these the most safe weapons. That means they have to do research--the most cutting-edge kind. You cannot have scientists at Sandia Laboratory or Los Alamos researching in depth a new science called nanoscience in shacks or in 50-year-old buildings. We are in the process of rebuilding modern facilities for this kind of science. We are going to bring companies and individuals to work with these great scientists as this new field of nanoscience is developed. The same is true with microengineering, which is another incredible field. We have to do that, too. They need to use some microengineering aspects in replacing parts of nuclear weapons, to keep them safe. So we have to have facilities. We are in the process of building facilities-- the greatest in the world--to take microengineering and develop it. Microengineering, to put it in a simple way, is a wafer we use now for computers. The wafer we are talking about in microengineering contains on it thousands of machines, or engines. These little machines can be formulated to work, one with the other, on a wafer. When you see it with a magnifying glass, you say what in the world is next for humankind, and what are they going to do with these? Nobody knows yet, but it will be part of the next generation. Perhaps medical science will use them. Perhaps it will be injected into the human body and these little machines will go to work and do things in the body, or for the body, such as clean out parts around the heart by just eating them up. We don't know. But those are things that are in these laboratories. We get excited when we hear and see them. So when we fund these buildings, we are funding something great for our country. People don't believe us and they think maybe we should not be doing some of it, but we have been generally prevailing. The Senate has been saying let's do it, let's keep on. Madam President, we are finished for the evening. We have nothing else to do, and we have no indication that anybody else wants to do anything. From my standpoint, I am going to finish now.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country. On this second anniversary of that fateful day, many of the emotions we felt are still very real. We continue to feel grief for those who were lost. We continue to feel admiration for the bravery of our policemen and firefighters. And we continue to feel shock over that day's inconceivable violence. The reality is that these emotions may be at the front of America's conscience for years to come, but it is my hope today that for those families who lost loved ones, each passing day brings with it some measure of healing. In addition to the emotional impact of the attacks, September 11, 2001 also had a profound effect on U.S. national security policy. The use of asymmetrical means by terrorists to inflict mass casualties altered our traditional view of who terrorists are and how we must confront them. No longer do we view terrorist acts as isolated events committed by a few extremists. Rather, 21st century terrorists have shown themselves to be organized, well-financed, and deeply committed to a doctrine of violence. We know this doctrine is aimed at undermining our economy, our infrastructure, and our sense of personal security. We also know it is based upon a willingness to employ weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets. This reality has forced both our political leaders and military planners to rethink the American premise about where and how to use armed force. And the result is that the specter of another WMD attack against our population means we can no longer subscribe to the long- held principle that the United States will attack only after being attacked. Instead, we must act preemptively to best protect innocent Americans from a replay of the 9/11 tragedy. Preemption means taking the offensive. It means taking the battle to the terrorists before they attack us. It requires good intelligence and cooperation from our friends and allies from around the world. And immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, many nations pledged such cooperation and actively supported our actions in Afghanistan. For example, President Chirac of France was the first head-of-state to visit the United States after the attacks, pledging to join in the fight to defend civilization from the scourge of terrorism. Indeed, no country showed a greater outpouring of sympathy for the United States in the immediate aftermath of the attacks than did France. Similarly, a poll conducted in Germany in the autumn of 2001 showed that after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, an increased number of Germans, 58 percent, saw the U.S. as Germany's most important partner. To be sure, this solidarity was greatly appreciated during our dark time of September 2001. The tragedy that America experienced, and that elicited such international sympathy, was the same tragedy that prompted us to adopt this preemptive military doctrine. It was the tragedy of September 11 that made us say to governments who would sponsor terrorism and supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, ``disarm or we will act to disarm you before your weapons can hurt our people.'' And this is what led us to act against Saddam Hussein, a proven killer who steadfastly refused to prove he no longer had WMDs that the world knew he had after the Gulf War. Many of our coalition partners understood the imperative of acting against a thug like Saddam Hussein in a post 9/11 world. They remembered the pain we endured and knew our actions in Iraq were a direct response to preventing a similar tragedy. But other nations did not recognize a link between illegitimate regimes like Iraq's and the terrorist threat facing the civilized world. The war on terror will continue to be difficult and will require tough decisions like those faced in deposing Saddam Hussein. It is my hope that all of our allies will join in a unified front in this war both in good times, and in bad. I want to say in closing how proud I am of many of the contributions that my home State has made in executing the war on terror. It was our F-117 stealth aircraft pilots who answered the President's call to take the first action against Saddam Hussein's regime. Furthermore, New Mexicans have fought and died heroically in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For that, we owe our deepest gratitude and respect. Our national laboratories have also made immense contributions to the war against terrorism, both ahead of 9/11 and with increasing emphasis post-9/11. They provided critical support in identifying strains of anthrax, and a biothreat detection system that was fielded at the Olympics as well as locations around the District of Columbia. Sandia invented the material that was heavily used in ridding the Hart building of anthrax concerns. Both labs have led the national efforts to control materials suitable for weapons of mass destruction. From weapons grade materials to materials suitable for dirty bombs, the labs have developed detectors and technologies to help secure and dispose of these materials. The systems used in monitoring international trade for any radioactive materials that could become weapons against us are largely from the New Mexico labs. They are providing computing resources through the National Infrastructure and Analysis Center of NISAC to model complex events that could threaten our Nation and develop mitigation strategies. I close by again remembering all the brothers and sisters we lost on September 11, 2001, and all those who have sacrificed in the ensuing war. Let our enemies not doubt that we will continue to pursue them wherever they may hide and will not stop until our victory is complete. God bless our soldiers and their families, and may God bless America.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator Reid for his brief remarks regarding this day, and for myself merely say I am among those Americans who never thought it could happen to us. While I sat in my den with my wife on the morning it happened, I was about as incredulous as anyone could be. After I heard more about it, and they told me it was real, I was still disbelieving. I was still incredulous. But now we look back and we know we are no longer invulnerable. We are no longer so powerful that we can say anything of danger to us will be fought far away. We know the kind of enemy that confronts us is very different than the enemies we have confronted during the lifetime of our Nation. This is a tough one. This is a unique one. This is one run by crazy men, by people who do not understand or reason as we do. So I am very pleased, with all the politics at home, that I can stand here and say I feel pretty confident we are doing better, that we are better off than the day this happened, that we are safer than the day it happened, that our big cities are safer. Certainly we are not totally safe. But I wonder whether anybody will ever be able to tell us we have done everything, we have spent every nickel, we have done every program, and we are totally safe from terrorists. I doubt that very much. In some regards we are lacking. Let us hope we have the wisdom so on the third anniversary we can stand here and say we have even done better, and it is more farfetched that they would succeed. Let's hope we can do that. For now, I am very proud of an open and free society that made changes to accommodate to this scourge of venom. We had to change a few things, but we did it. We had to spend some extra dollars, but we did. We had to make some cities much safer, but we helped them do it. And then we fought a war for it. Clearly, when you look back at it all, we did pretty well. For a free nation, we did pretty well. It is pretty easy to mobilize when you are not free. It is pretty easy to fight when you are a dictator. It is pretty difficult to fight against terrorism when you are a democracy and you have to do it openly, in public, and fight them openly, in public, and be criticized openly and in public. It is very hard, but we have done it.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Harkin. The Harkin amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from pursuing a proposed rule to modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations. In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to protect the lowest paid of our nations working population. The Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees overtime pay for all employees who work over 40 hours in one week, except for those employed in certain ``white collar'' jobs. Unfortunately, the current regulations have not been revised since the 1950s and employers face serious challenges in trying to interpret this law and classify modern jobs into categories created in a different era. Consequently, what should be a simple test, has become a very complex one with little certainty. Thankfully, this past March, the Department of Labor proposed changes that would update the regulations to reflect the realities of our 21st century workplace. The purpose of these new regulations is not, as many claim, to take away overtime pay from hardworking Americans; nobody wants that to occur. The purpose of these new regulations is to bring up to date overtime regulations so that employers will be better able to understand their obligations and comply with the law, and the Department of Labor will be better equipped to more vigorously enforce the law. If adopted, the Department of Labor proposal will guarantee overtime pay for any employee making less than $22,100 per year ($425 per week) regardless of the person's job duties. Current regulations only provide guaranteed overtime for those making less than $8,060 per year ($155 per week). This is almost a 175 percent increase and will mean that an additional 1.3 million employees nationwide will be guaranteed overtime pay under the proposed changes. In my home state of New Mexico, the Department of Labor estimates that enactment of this proposal would automatically guarantee overtime pay for 10,000 additional workers, and that these workers would receive $3,878,398 every year in additional overtime pay. The proposed regulations will not deny overtime pay to any workers based on salary alone; in fact, they will make it easier to determine which employees meet specific tests and thus qualify for ``exempt'' status. These exempt employees will continue to qualify for overtime pay. The proposed regulations will not affect employees paid pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements, thus unionized employees will continue to have the right to bargain for overtime pay, regardless of salary or job duties. The proposed regulations will not affect the right to overtime for non-white-collar workers such as police officers, firefighters or other first responders. This fact has been acknowledged in a recent press release from the Fraternal Order of Police. Modernization and reform of the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations has been on the Labor Department's regulatory agenda since the 1970s, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that the existing regulations simply do not comport with the realities of the modern workplace. I therefore encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and support the modernization of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work and inquisitive spirit of two young New Mexicans: Rachel Clements and Leah Crowder. These two home-schooled eighth graders from Albuquerque, NM, captured top honors at the Northwestern New Mexico Regional Science Fair for their project: ``The Effect of Bosque Fires on Saltcedar Growth.'' As we all know, science fairs are held every year, in nearly every part of the Nation. Likewise, there are many remarkable projects exhibited at these events. The Clements-Crowder project focused on a scientific issue that is of great concern to New Mexico: the tamarisk plant, also known as saltcedar. They conducted their study over the span of 2 years, and their results are noteworthy. On the west side of the Rio Grande, Rachel and Leah enthusiastically sought to understand how cottonwood canopies affect saltcedar growth and explore the usefulness of prescribed burning as a means of eradication. Their findings showed that more saltcedars grew in burned than in unburned areas. The results of their project reinforce the necessity of moving quickly to restore the hundreds of acres of the Bosque that were recently burned. While visiting our Nation's Capital this past month, they were kind enough to share their findings with me. While further study is necessary to verify them, their conclusions add to the knowledge necessary to deal with this threat to our water. This is the sort of information that I hope my bill, the Saltcedar Control Demonstration Act, will uncover and put to use. We must discover the best ways to eradicate this invasive species, as it will help New Mexico to conserve its most precious resource, water. As those of us who reside in the Southwest are well aware, water is scarce. On the other hand, saltcedar is an exotic, invading water thief. The majority of the large rivers and tributaries within the State have become overrun with saltcedar which drives out desirable vegetation and reduces the ability of riparian areas and waterways to provide habitat diversity for wildlife. These invaders must be dealt with decisively and quickly. Through their curiosity and keen sense of purpose, Rachel and Leah have provided insight into a devastating problem for New Mexico. In a sense, they have issued an even bigger challenge to address the saltcedar problem. I am proud of these two young people, and I salute their pursuit of knowledge.