Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for the opportunity to speak.

The Feinstein-Kennedy amendment would prevent the NNSA from studying alternative technologies for our nuclear stockpile. It would also prevent the NNSA and DOD from studying earth-penetrating capability, which many military experts believe is an area where our existing arsenal does not provide sufficient deterrence.

The robust nuclear earth penetrator is a study to determine how or if the existing B-61 and existing B-83--those are the names of nuclear weapons--might be modified to provide an added capability of underground penetration. At present, our military is unable to provide credible deterrence against deeply buried targets.

Included in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget is $27.6 million in funding to undertake a feasibility study for the RNEP. With this research--and I stress research--we may be able to solve the complex engineering challenges and identify capabilities for both nuclear and conventional weapons to address the evolving tactical challenges. This is research not intended to replace any conventional weapon. It would only serve to transition from relying on large megaton city busters with more precise weapons, also providing funding for the NNSA to evaluate modification to existing weapons. It does not imply a commitment to build these weapons. Section 3117 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2004 requires that specific congressional authorization be obtained to move beyond a feasibility study. That has not been repealed and has not been changed.

Last year, the Energy and Water appropriations bill contained language that prevents the NNSA and the Department of Defense from moving beyond a feasibility study without congressional approval. I am the chairman of that committee, and I intend to include similar language again this year.

The Advanced Concepts Initiative will examine emerging or alternative technologies that could provide this country with an improved nuclear deterrence.

In 2001, the Nuclear Posture Review suggested that we should keep our nuclear scientists engaged and thinking about what the nuclear stockpile of the future should look like. By denying our scientists the opportunity to investigate this technology and the options for our stockpile, we will also neglect critical research into improving the safety, reliability, and security of the existing aging stockpile. It makes absolutely no sense to ignore technology and innovation when it comes to nuclear security and deterrence. I guarantee other countries are not limiting themselves to what they know today but are focusing on new possibilities for tomorrow.

This is not an attempt to build brand-new weapons and add to the stockpile. I am very supportive of reducing the number of weapons we have deployed, and I support the President's recently announced efforts to take a dramatic step in that direction. I support a much smaller, more flexible stockpile that can respond to a variety of threats in the post-cold-war era.

Last year, the Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee included a requirement that the President send to Congress a nuclear stockpile report that underlines the size of the stockpile of the future. This classified report is complete and defines the size and mission of our future stockpile. It goes beyond reductions contemplated by the Clinton administration. The plan proposed by the President would reduce the number of deployed weapons to levels consistent with the Moscow Treaty and its lowest level in several decades.

But even with these reductions, we must constantly adapt to provide a credible deterrence to the post-cold-war era. It is not realistic to think we can put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. We cannot hope that if we ignore the evolving nuclear threat that it will go away. History tells us a different story.

Despite the U.S. adopting a testing moratorium, several countries, including France, India, and Pakistan have tested weapons. Countries such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea have ignored international pressure to stop the development of a nuclear capability.

The fact is, countries will pursue what is in their sovereign best interests, and the U.S. should not believe

that we are in any different position. It is in our Nation's best interest to ensure that our weapons serve as a credible deterrent to a wide range of threats.

I remain hopeful that we will only use our stockpile as a deterrent to other nuclear states. However, to be an effective deterrent, it must evolve to address the changing threats. We also must maintain a group of experts at our national labs that understand the complex science to support the engineering and physics to ensure our stockpile is a viable deterrent and is safely stored at home.

To ensure we have an effective deterrent, we are doing the following:

We are maintaining our nuclear deterrent. That sends a clear and convincing signal to our allies and our enemies that our nuclear capability is sufficient to deter most threats.

We are maintaining our test readiness that allows us to hedge against the possibility that we may someday need to conduct a test to confirm a problem or verify that we resolved a problem within the stockpile.

We are using the RNEP study to examine whether or not existing weapons could be adapted to improve our ability to hold at risk deeply buried facilities that our enemies occupy.

We are challenging our scientists to think of a wide variety of options and face challenges to ensure that our nuclear deterrent is flexible and responsive to evolving threats. Failure to challenge our physicists and engineers will limit our capabilities in the future.

It is disingenuous of our opponents to argue that these policies put us on an irreversible course of new weapons development. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress has the ultimate responsibility in determining whether or not to proceed with full-scale development.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this shortsighted amendment that would prevent our weapons scientists from investigating the best available options. This research is critical to ensuring this country has an effective and safe stockpile that will serve as a credible deterrent to all existing and potential threats.

I hope that in the process of discussing this issue, we will arrive at a conclusion that makes it eminently clear that the statement I have made regarding the 1-year feasibility study will be what we are talking about and what we will adopt.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the time S. Rep. No. 108-269 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. At the following link, ftp://ftp.cho.gov/54xx/doc5479/s1582.pdf, the CBO report for S. 1582 is now available on their Web site, and I ask unanimous consent that the CBO cost estimate be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. President, I was privileged to become chairman of the Senate Budget Committee at the same time Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. I never thought I was going to have that job, but with his victory, we took over the Senate. I recall Senator Howard Baker called me at home, and his greeting was ``Mr. Chairman.'' I kind of wondered what he was talking about, and then he told me. That was quite startling because I knew I was going to be chairman when Ronald Reagan would be asking that we carry out his program.

From January of 1981 until President Reagan left office in January of 1989, it was my privilege to work closely with him and his senior advisers, as with any President before or since. I suspect I saw President Reagan exhibit all his legendary traits: the man of principle, the man of strength, the man of strong convictions, the man of humor, and, in one famous case, a man with an Irish temper on occasion.

Even before he was sworn in, Mr. Reagan asked Cap Weinberger to head up his transition team for the Reagan budget and fiscal policy. I worked closely with Cap and then Dave Stockman, whom I knew when he was a Member of the House. He was announced to be the incoming OMB Director.

I was impressed by the three principles that Ronald Reagan insisted on in my budget that I would prepare: Restraint of domestic spending, long overdue increases in defense spending, and tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The economy was a dormant economy. Those three principles guided every decision that I had with the President and his senior staff. He was not going to compromise on these three principles.

I saw his strength on many occasions, most notably, of course, after the assassination attempt. But I also saw his strength when he insisted that the air traffic controllers either go to work or lose their jobs. That signal, clear and strong, persuaded me this man was, in fact, a man who would risk political standing in order to stand for the good of the public.

I saw his humor time and time again. Once when I showed up late for a meeting with him, there were other Senators present. It was very embarrassing. He was amused. And when my good friend, Senator Howard Baker, became Chief of Staff to the President, he told me one of his jobs was to try to come up with a good joke to tell the

President, that Reagan's humor came from the same sense of perspective that produced his strength and commitment to the American people.

I learned firsthand that the Irish in President Reagan also included a bit of an Irish temper. In 1993, I had the delicate task of telling the President that I would not put off my budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and that I would not be able to supply him with the entire increase in defense spending for the upcoming fiscal year. Cap Weinberger had made that request on behalf of the President. I would not put in my budget in the upcoming year that entire defense request. Cap Weinberger and I discussed this for weeks, and we put off this action over the Easter holiday and for weeks to give them a chance to work on their defense budget.

The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John Tower, and I discussed it, and Senator Tower knew we couldn't get the entire request. Finally, just as the markup of the budget was to occur, at about 10 minutes until 10 in the morning, the President called me on the telephone in the back room of the Budget Committee's hearing.

``Hello,'' I said to the President.

``Hello, Pete,'' he said pleasantly. ``You know, I really need you to put off the markup of the budget until we can get an agreement on the defense spending.''

``Mr. President, I really appreciate and am honored by your call, but I have delayed this for too long and just cannot get the full number that you have requested for defense.''

``Well, will you postpone the markup?'' he asked with little amiability in his voice.

``No, sir; I cannot do that,'' I replied.

At that point, the President said goodbye. At least I think that is what he said. I was told later by someone who was present in his office during the call that the President turned a little red in his face and threw the phone on the floor. Yet he was absolutely wonderful to me after that. He campaigned for me. He turned his budget over to me for implementation. And I had a great relationship not only with him but with those who served him, in particular Dave Stockman.

Let me note something about the first budget exercise. The President and his staff had some thoughts about the proper legislative approach. I disagreed and argued for something we now know and have learned to use, and we understand it well. But it was truly historic, the use of a process called reconciliation. That was the first time we ever did it. Nobody understood it. The President, with the guidance of Leader Howard Baker, went along with our recommendation. Senator Fritz Hollings joined me in this historic reconciliation effort. We had all the President's budget restraints in it. We had his tax cuts in that extraordinary document. And in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1992, we had room for all the President's defense spending increases to which he ended up agreeing.

Some Members of the Senate expressed dismay and even anger over the use of this process called reconciliation. Even some Republicans were perplexed by its complications and wondered how it would really work. I know the President and his staff relied on us in the Senate and on the committee to carry out what we promised.

It is to President Reagan's credit that he supported us every step of the way. Perhaps that was one of the things I admired most of this man. He made a decision, entrusted it to those on whom he relied, and used all of his power to make a plan succeed.

I cannot tell you how complimented I felt when Howard Baker came to me and said: The President says if you and I think we can do this, then he will back us all the way. And he did.

What a great President. What a great American. What a great man. It was truly my privilege to work with him. I think history will record that our work was of historic importance as the President moved toward making this economy stronger than ever, this Nation more secure than ever, and the world safer than ever.

In closing, let me say I honestly wish I had had occasion to know him even better. I didn't have the opportunity to get to know him on a personal basis. Most of what I learned of him is expressed and explained in the remarks I have made. But the wonderful stories I have heard about him are clearly believable, because what I saw of him was remarkable. What I saw of him in the numerous meetings was truly incredible.

Some spoke ill of him during those days. It is wonderful to note that most of those have forgotten those days and are now part of this great chorus in our country that is praising him as one of our greatest.

I knew most about the economic situation because of the Budget Committee, but it is easy for me to see how he succeeded in foreign affairs. It is clear no one could have accomplished with the Soviet Union what he did, because most Presidents would not be believed, and most Presidents would not be permitted to propose and make the kind of agreements with the Soviet Union that he did.

To sum it up, he made a stronger America. Our economy grew somewhere between 18 million and 20 million jobs. Think of that. We are now talking about 2.2 million jobs. He took an economy that was in terrible shape. Does anybody remember 21-percent interest? We have grown so accustomed to low inflation and low interest rates in the last few years that most of us don't understand inflation was so rampant and interest rates so high that, in our grocery stores, those who filled the shelves would also bring along a stamp and they would change the price as they walked down the aisles, because the foodstuff had to go up day by day, week by week. Can you imagine what Americans would think about that today? But we had to take it back then and we had to wait for something else to work. That something else was Ronald Reagan's policy, his approach to lower taxes, which stimulated this economy.

So it is with deep regret that I join with many others and many in the Senate who will have words to say about him. Again, my best to his wife Nancy and his family. I understand their great grief. But they had him for a very long time, and I am sure with the passage of time they will begin to understand that. I hope they can and I hope they will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico is currently facing the greatest threat to its prosperity that I have witnessed during my 31-year tenures as a United States Senator. The threat is one that we all too often take for granted: the availability of water.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would address New Mexico's most urgent water needs.

The water problems facing New Mexico are twofold. The State faces both water supply shortages and the contamination of the scarce water resources it does have. This has resulted in inadequate water supplies to meet our State's needs, causing great hardship to New Mexico communities.

New Mexico faces significant contamination of both surface and subsurface water stores. Nowhere is this more evident than in the centuries-old community of Chimayo. The 3,000 citizens of this unincorporated community rely on individual wells for their potable water and rely on largely deteriorated septic systems to dispose of waste water. Hydrologists have determined that, because of absence or deterioration of sewer and water infrastructure in the basin, an alarming 75 percent of well samples taken had significant contamination of both total coli form and fecal coli form. Their individual wells are further tainted by high levels of total dissolved solids. Because of the unreliability of the well water, many residents use water from irrigation ditches for drinking. This water, too, was found to have high levels of fecal coli form contamination.

The water contamination in Chimayo is so desperate that in 2001, then-Governor Gary Johnson declared the region an emergency area and had the National Guard bring in tanker trucks to provide potable water to the area every other day. Chimayo is still in ``emergency status'' and the tanker trucks still provide the only potable water to many of the citizens. This state of affairs is clearly unacceptable in the most technologically advanced and wealthy country on earth.

The bill I introduce today would provide emergency water treatment assistance to Chimayo so that its communities' citizens no longer have to rely on water tankers for their water. In addition, it would direct the Interior Secretary to perform an assessment of water resources in the area and to help the city of Chimayo to make good decisions about a regional water system.

Ever decreasing water supplies in Espanola, New Mexico have also reached critical levels and require immediate action.

The city of Espanola's current water system produced approximately 1,000 gallons per minute less than is needed to provide for its current population. This production shortfall has resulted in insufficient water pressure throughout the city. The chronic lack of pressure is prevalent especially in the portion of the city where the Espanola Hospital is located. The city has twice declared a state of emergency due to lack of adequate water and water pressure. As a result, the city has called on the National Guard to supply water to the hospital.

Further exacerbating the problem, the city has been unable to make good use of its water resources. Although it has been allocated 1,000 acre feet per annum of San-Juan Chama Project water by the Bureau of Reclamation, the city is unable to divert this water due to inadequate water infrastructure. Instead of making use of its available San Juan Chama water, the city has been depleting its limited groundwater, a resource which the city needs to save for years of reduced surface flows.

I commend the efforts of Espanola to secure funding for infrastructure necessary to make use of its San-Juan Chama Project water. To date, the city has secured funding for a necessary diversion project and has identified a site for the project. It has also raised from State, local and Federal sources nearly all the money required to build a water filtration facility to treat its San Juan Chama Project water.

The bill I introduce today would provide the sum of $3 million at a 25 percent Federal cost share to complete this critically necessary project.

These are two problems are representative of many we have just begun to address. There are no easy answers or solutions to the western state's water woes. New Mexico and much of the Western United States will face these and other problems for years to come. However, preserving the livelihood of my home state requires that we address these issues instantly and vigorously. I hope the Senate will give this bill its every consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my home State of New Mexico is currently facing the greatest threat to its prosperity that I have witnessed during my 31-year tenures as a United States Senator. The threat is one that we all too often take for granted: the availability of water.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would address New Mexico's most urgent water needs.

The water problems facing New Mexico are twofold. The State faces both water supply shortages and the contamination of the scarce water resources it does have. This has resulted in inadequate water supplies to meet our State's needs, causing great hardship to New Mexico communities.

New Mexico faces significant contamination of both surface and subsurface water stores. Nowhere is this more evident than in the centuries-old community of Chimayo. The 3,000 citizens of this unincorporated community rely on individual wells for their potable water and rely on largely deteriorated septic systems to dispose of waste water. Hydrologists have determined that, because of absence or deterioration of sewer and water infrastructure in the basin, an alarming 75 percent of well samples taken had significant contamination of both total coli form and fecal coli form. Their individual wells are further tainted by high levels of total dissolved solids. Because of the unreliability of the well water, many residents use water from irrigation ditches for drinking. This water, too, was found to have high levels of fecal coli form contamination.

The water contamination in Chimayo is so desperate that in 2001, then-Governor Gary Johnson declared the region an emergency area and had the National Guard bring in tanker trucks to provide potable water to the area every other day. Chimayo is still in ``emergency status'' and the tanker trucks still provide the only potable water to many of the citizens. This state of affairs is clearly unacceptable in the most technologically advanced and wealthy country on earth.

The bill I introduce today would provide emergency water treatment assistance to Chimayo so that its communities' citizens no longer have to rely on water tankers for their water. In addition, it would direct the Interior Secretary to perform an assessment of water resources in the area and to help the city of Chimayo to make good decisions about a regional water system.

Ever decreasing water supplies in Espanola, New Mexico have also reached critical levels and require immediate action.

The city of Espanola's current water system produced approximately 1,000 gallons per minute less than is needed to provide for its current population. This production shortfall has resulted in insufficient water pressure throughout the city. The chronic lack of pressure is prevalent especially in the portion of the city where the Espanola Hospital is located. The city has twice declared a state of emergency due to lack of adequate water and water pressure. As a result, the city has called on the National Guard to supply water to the hospital.

Further exacerbating the problem, the city has been unable to make good use of its water resources. Although it has been allocated 1,000 acre feet per annum of San-Juan Chama Project water by the Bureau of Reclamation, the city is unable to divert this water due to inadequate water infrastructure. Instead of making use of its available San Juan Chama water, the city has been depleting its limited groundwater, a resource which the city needs to save for years of reduced surface flows.

I commend the efforts of Espanola to secure funding for infrastructure necessary to make use of its San-Juan Chama Project water. To date, the city has secured funding for a necessary diversion project and has identified a site for the project. It has also raised from State, local and Federal sources nearly all the money required to build a water filtration facility to treat its San Juan Chama Project water.

The bill I introduce today would provide the sum of $3 million at a 25 percent Federal cost share to complete this critically necessary project.

These are two problems are representative of many we have just begun to address. There are no easy answers or solutions to the western state's water woes. New Mexico and much of the Western United States will face these and other problems for years to come. However, preserving the livelihood of my home state requires that we address these issues instantly and vigorously. I hope the Senate will give this bill its every consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the postponement of a hearing scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing which was previously scheduled for Thursday, June 10 at 10 a.m. has been postponed until Tuesday, June 15th at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding crude oil supply, gasoline demand and the effects on prices.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record shall send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Lisa Epifani at 202-224-5269 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

The hearing will be held on Thursday June 17th at 10 a.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the Environmental Management Program of the Department of Energy and Issues Associated with Accelerated Cleanup.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Dr. Pete Lyons at 202-224- 5861 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555.

Mr. President, I rise today with great honor and privilege to introduce a bill that would rename Ridges Basin Reservoir in Colorado as Lake Nighthorse after my dear friend and colleague, the Senior Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It is fitting that the Ridges Basin Reservoir, which was created pursuant to legislation introduced and shepherded through congress by Senator Campbell, bear his name. I hope the United States Congress will give this legislation its every consideration.

A veteran, Olympian, and public servant, Senator Campbell has selflessly devoted himself to serving his State and country for over half a century. During his seventeen years in the United State Congress, Senator Campbell has earned respect on both sides of the aisle as a consummate statesman and staunch advocate for the State of Colorado.

As you know, Senator Campbell recently announced that he will not seek a third term to the United States Senate. This is a great loss to the Nation and to the great State of Colorado, but most of all, it is a significant loss to the Senate. His leadership and presence will be greatly missed by all of us. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with great honor and privilege to introduce a bill that would rename Ridges Basin Reservoir in Colorado as Lake Nighthorse after my dear friend and colleague, the Senior Senator from Colorado, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It is fitting that the Ridges Basin Reservoir, which was created pursuant to legislation introduced and shepherded through congress by Senator Campbell, bear his name. I hope the United States Congress will give this legislation its every consideration.

A veteran, Olympian, and public servant, Senator Campbell has selflessly devoted himself to serving his State and country for over half a century. During his seventeen years in the United State Congress, Senator Campbell has earned respect on both sides of the aisle as a consummate statesman and staunch advocate for the State of Colorado.

As you know, Senator Campbell recently announced that he will not seek a third term to the United States Senate. This is a great loss to the Nation and to the great State of Colorado, but most of all, it is a significant loss to the Senate. His leadership and presence will be greatly missed by all of us. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 10th, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding crude oil supply, gasoline demand and the effects on prices.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Lisa Epifant at 202-224-5269 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555.

Mr. President, I rise to talk this morning about good news.

This morning we just received a current report on how many new jobs were created in America in the past quarter. There were 248,000 jobs created in May.

There is so much talk about unemployment. People say this Presidential race is going to depend on jobs and the performance of our President with reference to jobs and the American economy during his term. We all know that about the time he was elected, this country was going into recession. That means the big growth that occurred for about 4 years prior to that had reached its peak and was on the way down. That means if something was not done, we would have to wait for the natural give and take of the American economy to right itself. Who knows how long that would have taken. Perhaps it would have taken 2, 3 or 4 years to right itself because the lessons of economics take that long. Once the economy starts down, one has to wait for the economy to right itself, and who knows how long that will take. That recession was coupled with the bust of the stock market. Who knows when it would have filled that gap.

The recession did not last very long because somebody did something right. I surmise that Congress did not do anything right because I can look around and see what happened. They did not do anything. The President did something that was right. He suggested that we ought to interrupt that recession and startup the American economy again by cutting taxes.

I have been here when numerous tax bills were passed. They were passed in the name of new jobs, in the name of putting people to work, in the name of making sure there was some kind of fairness--whatever reason they were passed. Essentially one has to look at them and see how they worked and how good were they in comparison to the tax cuts that were done at the request of President Bush.

Frankly, I looked down the other day and saw this list of tax cuts that have occurred during this President's time. They were pushed and shoved through Congress, Democrats voting almost to a man against them. But if one looks at the list, it is the most astounding list of appropriate tax cuts for growth I have ever seen in my 31 years.

Normally, we pass all kinds of irrelevant tax cuts when we pass a tax cut bill. I think the Senator from Alabama knows that. This tax package, with Congress usually working its way to change the President's approach and do the wrong thing, adopted all of the essential features of the President's tax bill. They were directed at small business in America.

Guess what. It worked. Small business in America is booming. The job creator in America, small business, is absolutely moving ahead. Jobs are being added. Families that own businesses are buying trucks, adding on to their buildings because we were smart enough to adopt a tax bill that invited investment, invited growth type items for them.

My colleagues can look at the list. Even Congress went along with the President and adopted the right ones. I will admit there were two that were socially minded. That was the child credit and trying to get the marriage tax penalty closer to reality, closer to fairness, but all the rest had to do with growth.

What happened to all the clamor about jobs? In the last 10 months, this economy in America has created 1.4 million new jobs. Now, there was a lot of talk about the President and 2 million jobs that he lost. What a joke. First, he did not lose them. We had a recession going and he did not create that, but he did cause a shallow recession. Now we are kind of up, up and away on job creation.

I surmise this will continue right up and through the election. If it does, that 2 million jobs argument going on across America can be wiped out, and we will be back to the best way to create jobs is to create a tax system and tax cuts that are directed at corporate and small business in America so they can add jobs and still grow and prosper or indeed do better than they were doing. That is what the President did.

Unemployment had reached 7.8 percent during that shallow recession. It is now down to 5.6 percent. That is not too shabby. As a matter of fact, I predict it will continue to go down. I say to my friend that it has gone from 7.8 to 5.6 and holding steady or coming down.

The second argument being made is that these tax cuts caused this big deficit.

Let me suggest there are at least three things that can cause a deficit to grow. One is if you spend more, and one is if you have a recession or a downturn in the economy, and then the third one is if you cut taxes. Of course, if you cut taxes and assume it will not do anything in the economy, then you will do a straight line and say the tax cuts created part of the deficit.

Let me tell you, the numbers are absolutely startling. If they are correct, for those who think we will fix this by increasing taxes, they have to be in some way reading tea leaves that have already lost all their flavor and are not good for anything. That is because the Congressional Budget Office, which is a neutral body, has said the weak economy caused 40 percent of the deficit we have accumulated. Let me repeat. When a recession occurs, you don't collect taxes--you collect less, I should say, because there are fewer workers and businesses are making less money, and in a sense the weak economy causes losses in the tax take by the American Government and other things that create growth. So 40 percent came from that, from that one thing, the recession.

Increased spending? We know what we increased the spending for. Some was of our own doing, just because we spent it, but most of it was because of homeland security, increased defense costs, and the like. Who would not have done that? That had to be done. That was increased spending by 36 percent. So we have 40 and 36 that had nothing to do with taxes. You would think, from those who are talking about it, that the tax cut created it all. It created the total of 40 plus 36, which is 76 percent. That leaves something like 24 percent that came from tax cuts.

If the tax cuts stimulated the economy and pulled us out of the recession, then you can almost say if we wait around that one will disappear because, with significant economic growth, the tax revenues of the country will go up almost automatically.

I can remember at one point when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, we were getting estimates of the tax take of the United States. We were so inept at measuring the result of the tax cuts and economic growth that every quarter we underestimated by a substantial amount how much revenue was coming into the Government. We had three successive quarters when the revenues came in at $50 billion more than we expected. As a matter of fact, I assume that within the next 4 or 5 months with this growth, if it remains and is sustained, we will start seeing the revenue numbers of America change.

They are not going to change for the worse; they are going to change for the better. There is already a slight change, but I am not willing to brag about it yet because it has not passed $20 billion. It is under $20 billion. You know, we have to be careful assuming that estimates are going to remain right because they change from being right to being wrong, in terms of their validity.

We will get there, though. Soon this prosperous economy will start producing more revenue. The deficits will have to be affected positively. If we continue to restrain our budget growth, the country will have everything right. It will have the tax cuts that we have done still in place--there are a couple of more that we need to do. They will be in place and America will be able to say under the leadership of George Bush, the country came out of recession and started growing. Even with a war we did it right, and the Americans at home are investing in small businesses. And it is growing. American corporations are incurring more and more surplus and are looking around for investments, and that is good.

I repeat, I am very proud of what this President did. As with Iraq, this President has courage. On the economy, he exercised courage. There were more people around, including some Republicans--maybe more than a few--who were beating down his door, saying: Don't cut taxes. We are in a recession and the deficit is growing. Don't cut taxes.

He was steadfast. He said the only way to fix it is to cut taxes and cut

them in a way that investment will occur, that savings will occur. That is what we did, at his behest and under his leadership.

I yield the floor.

That is absolutely correct. Incidentally, in my list of things that have hurt the economy, that we had to eliminate, I failed to mention that we, the United States, had imposed upon us the 9/11 incident. It caused a lot of turmoil in this economy. I am not saying that trying to ignore the terrible deaths that occurred and the wrath that Americans have for the terrorists. But that should be in the list, also, of things that would add to the economic downturn.

But the Senator is correct. The President not only inherited a recession, but it continued afterwards, and it could not have been caused by President Bush because it occurred too quickly. With an economy this size you can't do anything in 2 months. If you wanted to hurt it, you couldn't hurt it. It is too big, too powerful. As a matter of fact, if you want to cut taxes, you have to be patient because they do not bring the economy back tomorrow or next week. It takes a while.

It took a while. While the doubters ran around the country talking about no jobs, the economy was percolating underneath and created the jobs. That is what happened today.

I forgot to mention one thing we did not do that is currently a political issue and is in this campaign. That is, what do we do about the fact that most of these tax cuts--I just told you what my view is about them, which is that they help--are temporary? They should not have been temporary; Congress would have made them permanent. But the problem is, the Budget Act of the United States, which governs budgets and governs the mandatory change in taxes, has provisions in it that mean you cannot cut taxes permanently. You can only do it over a number of years and your authority runs out. So many of these tax cuts are going to run out.

I am grateful they are not going to run out before this growth, but they are going to stop growth because those people involved in investing are expecting to have the same tax cut for a while. They don't expect to be turned off and on like a spigot. If you want them to respond, you have to tell them when you act on them you don't have to worry about next month that you are going to be in a business that you lost a hundred-thousand-dollar tax credit, or you lost whatever it was. You have to leave them in. I think we ought to have a full-blown debate on that. I hope we can. I don't know if we can because we don't have that budget and I am not sure we can do a tax bill without a budget.

Senator Nickles is trying hard. There are some on our side who will not let us do it. I regret it because I believe for those who talk about ``no more tax cuts because of the deficit,'' they actually have it backwards. Because of the deficit, you should be making sure the tax cuts remain because you can put more people to work. You can cause more revenues to come into the country. You can stabilize for long periods of time the status of the American economy, which is good at this point, not bad. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a New Mexican named Judith Herrera to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. I believe everyone knows that the administration of justice is one of the most significant pillars of good government. I think in this instance the President has sent us an extraordinary person to be a judge in the District of New Mexico.

We have a vacancy there because of a justice who took senior status. We have a tremendous overload, and I am very pleased that we finally got to the point where we could have another judge. Maybe we can begin to take care of this enormous overload. I thank everyone who worked on this nomination. Her credentials are impeccable. Every group that needed to recommended her.

Judith Herrera is a resident of Santa Fe, NM. She attended the University of New Mexico.

She then attended the Georgetown University Law Center where she earned her law degree.

We, in New Mexico, are fortunate that Judy decided to return to New Mexico upon completion of her law degree.

She began her career in public service shortly after returning to New Mexico, serving on the Santa Fe City Council from 1981 to 1986.

She continued her service by sitting on the boards of St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe, St. Michael's High School Foundation, also in Santa Fe, and the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

She has practiced law for more than 20 years in New Mexico, amassing in impressive resume and reputation in the legal community.

I am confident she will be an outstanding member of the federal judiciary.

I look forward to Judy Herrera's tenure on the bench.

Parliamentary inquiry. Are we now on the Republican morning business time?

How much time do we have?

I have told those who follow me, I will try to get finished in 7 minutes.

Mr. President, over the weekend, the world witnessed the

horrible hostage-taking situation in Saudi Arabia, where terrorists attacked foreign oil workers and their families. I think we all know that foreign workers have been an integral part of the workforce that produces oil and maintains the infrastructure for oil in Saudi Arabia. These cowards did not attack refineries or terminals or pipelines this time. Those hard assets are supposed to be well guarded and could be replaced. I am not sure they are so well guarded. Instead, the terrorists chose human targets to cripple the world's access to oil supply. Thank God that about 50 of the hostages were rescued, but we mourn the more than 20 lives lost in this terrorist attack.

In the short run, this attack on foreigners and office facilities does not affect physical supply, but it can harm future output and expansion. Investment will be eroded if there is instability.

These terrorist attacks are a frightening warning that terrorists may be only steps away from destroying significant Saudi or other Middle East production facilities. I believe America should be more worried about that than anything else affecting our economic well-being.

It is actually a shame that we sit around and talk and do nothing to make America better prepared. Does anybody doubt that the terrorists, if they can get in and destroy an office full of people, are not prepared to do some real damage to the oil supply and the infrastructure, the tankers, and all the other things? I believe they are.

Terrorists' actions intensify concerns about the vulnerability of oil markets to supply disruption. We saw the price jump $2.45 following the weekend attack, and there are indicators in the future market that those who invest in that market are investing in it heavily, which means they are gambling in a forthright and intelligent way that oil will go up even more.

Instead of oil coming down because of good economic realities, the one thing that is happening is oil is going up. We saw that jump, and before the weekend attack, oil prices were back under $40, seemed to be moving a bit down in anticipation of the OPEC meeting on June 3.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, remarked that the signs of increased OPEC production were calming the market, but the weekend attack has again increased a sense of risk and nervousness that has done so much to propel the prices to $40.

Fears and worries of terrorist sabotage attacks and political unrest have translated into a risk premium of $7 to $10 per barrel. This so- called risk premium is one of the reasons why the prices are as high as they are today.

Given that we live in a world of increased risk, particularly with mounting security worries in the Middle East, it is imperative that we take responsible steps to ensure our energy security today and in the future. Today, our energy security requires an emergency supply of oil in the event of severe disruption. Saudi Arabia is the largest OPEC producer and the OPEC country with the largest extra capacity to increase supplies. A major disruption of Saudi oil that we cannot respond to with the SPR would harm our energy security and the economy far more than $40 a barrel of oil.

The President is right to preserve the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for times of dire need, not as a political gesture to abate high prices. And, yes, while prices are high today and they do hurt, today's prices are still below the energy prices America has borne in past years.

The SPR is designated and designed to be a national security asset, a national security blanket. It is not there to deal with supply and demand imbalance, which is the true source of higher prices.

What we have today is a long-coming trend of tightening supply and increasing demand. Changing our treatment of SPR cannot fix that problem. I fear that changing SPR policy will actually end up hurting us. What do my colleagues think OPEC would do if we suddenly changed SPR policy? From their standpoint, they could easily solve that by changing their output response. It would not take much, just a little bit, and they would negate any significant positiveness that comes from releasing SPR oil.

We have 660 million barrels of oil in SPR. We import 11.5 million barrels a day. About 5 million of those 11.5 million barrels a day are from OPEC. That means we have about 60 days' supply if there is a complete disruption to our imports and about 120 days' supply if only OPEC supplies were interrupted. SPR is not there just to deal with potential Middle East supply problems.

Weather forecasters predict an intense hurricane season for the Atlantic and gulf coasts, which would affect domestic and natural gas. As I see it, it is a shame that we are not ready to produce an energy bill and that we are still debating what this Senator likes, what that Senator likes, what the Democrats like. We have tried very hard to accommodate, but we cannot. SPR is our insurance policy against natural disasters as well as supply interruptions. We need SPR full and ready to serve in the event of an emergency. Past experience has taught us that trying to use it as a price control does not work. The bottom line is that changing our treatment of SPR does not lead to quick fixes in the market.

The energy bill that I have been fighting to pass in the Senate is about future energy security. The energy bill is not about quick fixes to the oil and gasoline market; it is a policy plan to move us into the future with a broader portfolio of resources and improved supply and demand balance. The energy bill will increase natural gas and domestic oil production that helps balance supply with growing demand.

The Energy bill will remove the 2-percent oxygenate mandate, which will make it easier to refine and easier for refineries to make gasoline that can be traded between regional markets. It is clearly very positive for America.

The Energy bill addresses the proliferation of boutique fuels. There are a number of State-specific gasoline formulations that have made refining more challenging and market efficiency poorer. The Energy bill will promote further research in hydrogen power that is the potential future for transportation. We have to get started. The longer we wait, the more we risk being blamed for an American disaster.

I will keep coming to the Senate floor to drive home the point that we need to pass an energy bill. Someone called today's energy situation ``a crude awakening.'' It is, indeed. It is time for us to wake up and do something about it. The American public deserves action. They deserve an energy policy that takes care of them today and in the future.

I believe there is a real probability that those who lead our country today, including the Senate--perhaps excluding those who have tried, those who have voted for a new policy--but I believe there is a chance that the leaders of today will be blamed for the disasters of tomorrow. They will not be little disasters if, in fact, we cannot stop the terrorists from their activity. I believe the leaders of Iraq are optimistic, and I am glad because they want terrorists out of that country. But terrorists are everywhere. Believe you me, they are in Saudi Arabia. Believe you me, that is fragile. Believe you me, they are looking at the fragileness of the Saudi situation. I believe they can almost do what they like. They are close. I understand they know what is going on in the oil patch of Saudi Arabia. I am very worried. Frankly, I don't want to go down in history, when this event happens, and have it said we did nothing. I will continue to try. Many in this body will continue to try to make America's energy portfolio more diverse, with different uses so we can face the future with a little more hope.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 8th, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the term expiring June 30, 2009.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

subcommittee on national parks

Mr. President, first I want to say I will be very brief. I have told the Senate, as best I could, that I would try to take the floor every day and say something about America's energy crisis. So today I want to speak again for a couple of minutes.

A week ago, some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle were down here on the Senate floor complaining because they wanted the administration to persuade OPEC to increase its production. They acted and spoke as if our President was not doing anything about it, and that they were going to have to direct him to do it.

Instead of passing an energy bill, Senators on the other side continue to blame the President for the high price of gasoline. This administration has been part of an announcement today which I think indicates the President is doing his job well. Saudi Arabia has announced it will ask OPEC to increase its production by 2 million barrels a day.

That is the first solid good news we have had in a long time. If it happens, if they can, I think it is obvious part of that will be due to the good relations between our President and the Saudis. In a sense, the President is working hard with the tools he has to help us through this energy crisis.

But the American people are still waiting for this Senate to deliver an energy bill. I have been trying to pass the Energy bill for more than a year. Some of the same Senators who wanted the administration to persuade OPEC to increase production, as if the President were doing nothing, are the very Senators who have blocked the Energy bill for more than a year. Each of them seems to have one other reason that they will or will not vote for this energy bill. I am telling these Senators, the administration is doing everything it can to address oil prices, and they have asked us repeatedly to produce an energy bill.

If you don't like the President's suggestions, let's do something else. The Energy bill we produced was not exclusively the President's, though some on the other side continue to say they didn't like the President's and we have the President's bill here. That is not the case.

I again ask that the other side of the aisle seriously consider the proposition of sitting down with our side of the aisle and working through the Energy bill to see if we can't get together on an overwhelming portion of it so if the OPEC cartel reduces oil prices and we get some good news that it will not be temporary, it will not be a one-time event, but we can send a message to the world we are trying to solve our problem by bringing alternatives to the market in America.

If we told the world we were moving on natural gas and moving on coal and moving on nuclear and moving on wind energy and we are doing something for our electricity grid that is important and long term, they would react first in disbelief, because they wouldn't believe we could do it, and then, when it was done, there would be great relief in the world that America is doing something to help itself out of this crisis.

I commend to my colleagues an article from the June 2004 issue of the National Geographic, at page 84.

You wouldn't expect that to be the great source of this information, but it has the best article I have seen on oil today and oil in the future. It is called ``The End Of Cheap Oil.'' It tells us what a problem we have in America if we do not solve our energy crisis.

Let me close by saying most of us think our oil and its related products all go to automobiles and transportation. If you read this article you will find only half goes to that. Half of America's use goes to a myriad of products, from plastics to all kinds of related products, including many in the semiconducting industry. That comes from oil. Fifty percent of our use is for products, for agriculture, and all kinds of things.

I suggest we ought to get on with it. Maybe we learned our lesson and we don't have to come down here and try to blame the President and make this a political issue with reference to the White House, when, if the President wanted to go to the public every day, he could make sure they understood the truth. That is, it is our fault, not his.

I yield the floor.