Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. No, sir. About 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I acknowledge upfront the very astute and academically sound argument of my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. While I have been working in this field for the last 25 to 26 years in particular, and the last 10 with more emphasis, this has occurred in the last period of time. My work has come as the United States has prepared its great nuclear weapons laboratories to use new kinds of science to determine the viability and credibility of the existing warheads without underground testing. As everyone recalls, this body passed an amendment, rather overwhelmingly, saying we should not use underground testing for our weapons. I have learned since then how little we knew about that proposition when we cast that vote. Nonetheless, it is the law of the land. It has cost the American taxpayer, in my way of looking at it, billions of dollars. Frankly, as I look at the risk in the world, I do not think it has saved the world from nuclear weapons as people had thought. Already with that ban, there are new countries with new nuclear weapons, and they did not need underground testing. At least they did not need it as we had assumed they would need it when we stopped ourselves from doing it. Yet we have the greatest scientific community of men and women in the world, believe it or not, accumulated in three laboratories, and about 85 percent of their work goes to that one item. How can we make sure that the weapons we have are valid without testing, all of which was done in the hope that nobody else would get bombs, get any nuclear weapons, because an underground test would proliferate the desire, if nothing else, for more nuclear weapons? I was not on the Senate floor for the entire argument when that amendment of nonnuclear testing occurred. My great friend Mark Hatfield was a proponent. But I do know the argument was of the type that if we did not do that, we would be inviting other countries to do what is necessary to develop nuclear weapons. If we did not do it, we could dampen that. Now, I do not suggest the arguments are analogous. It is interesting that this enormous debate is taking place regarding an amendment that says nothing in the repeal of the previous amendment regarding low-yield weapons. ``Nothing in the repeal made by subsection (a) shall be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons.'' We could say we do not believe what we are saying, that it is not true, if America wants to direct its scientists--the same scientists I just spoke of, incidentally--it will be the same laboratories. They will not invent some new ones. In addition to everything you are doing, you will be given permission to think about, to hypothesize, to ponder, to make pictures of, draw diagrams of low-yield bombs and what they are all about. Does it make sense, in the kind of world we live, to say to the greatest scientists in the world--we are spending about $6 billion a year for them to make sure the current nuclear weapons are OK, safe, and will deliver, if called upon, without underground testing, but to say to that same group, you cannot spend any time--you cannot have a department, you cannot have a division, you cannot have your smartest people or even any people in those institutions thinking about low- level nuclear bombs--not making them, not preparing to deploy them, for this statute forbids it. Our laboratories are filled with dedicated Americans. They want to do their jobs. They want to do no more or no less than they are authorized. They do not want to be called upon by a congressional committee to respond to doing more than they had authority to do; and clearly they never want to be accused of having done less than they were supposed to. On the other hand, does it seem possible we should be saying to these most brilliant of scientists, here on the wall is a statute and regardless of what comes to your great minds about low-level nuclear bombs, stop thinking about it. It is against the law. We do not want you thinking about it. Maybe that is a little farfetched. But it is not farfetched to say thinking about it and writing something down about it is against the law, at least if what my colleague from New Mexico says on the floor prevails. Those scientists know so much more than us about the world and the changes occurring, and we are wondering about what Russia is going to be doing. There is apt to be 3 or 4 nuclear powers in the next 10 years and there is nothing in the world we can do about it. We can sit on the floor and talk about low yield; maybe that is what they are after. There will be nuclear devices that can be delivered long distances causing huge amounts of damage. They are going to happen. The people working on those are not going to spend one iota of concern on whether we have this provision in our law. Some of our scientists might just come up with a great idea about a low-level bomb that could be great for America considering what they see going on in the world, converse to what the argument has been. The argument has been, we will teach the world to do what we are doing. I am suggesting our scientists will say to us, we are learning from the world what we might want to do in order to keep the peace longer and better and be able to tell our adversaries what you are thinking of doing. I thought that was what we were all about. I thought that is what Los Alamos scientists are all about. I thought they were part of this great deterrent. I still believe they are. I believe to permit them to work in this area is part of the deterrent. It does not commit the country to build new kinds of weapons. It does not permit us to produce or test new weapons. It does not suggest we should deploy new weapons. It allows our scientists to study and perform research and development options that policymakers in the administration and even in the Congress may want to know more about. I know this for sure when I say ``may want to know more about it.'' I say that because these smart people might come to us and tell us, believe it or not, something we do not know. Would that be preposterous to some of us sitting in the Senate? Would it be preposterous that after this prohibition is lifted in 5 years they could come to us and say, We have been studying and here is what we have found. It is something you never had in mind, we never had in mind. But think about it. All of that seems to me to come on the good side. On the negative side, I cannot see where researching, thinking about, intellectualizing about low-level waste, is adding to the proliferation of nuclear weapons problem in the world. Remember, even if someone in the administration wanted the new weapons, they could not proceed to full-scale development, the production and deployment, unless Congress authorizes and appropriates funds required to do so. This has not been done. It should not be done without more information or debate, and it will not be done. Finally, there are very important intelligence, nonproliferation reasons why our scientists should be able to develop their thinking in these important areas of research. If anyone in this world is thinking about low-level weapons, we must know as much as we can about them. I just said that in a different way a moment ago. NNSA, the new semiautonomous agency that controls our weapons development, should challenge their scientists and engineers to think, to explore, to discover, to innovate. By removing the prohibition on research and development on low-level yield weapons, our experts will expand their own understanding and capabilities without artificial restrictions. I repeat, if anything comes out of this that is surprising, it will be what we will be able to do to prevent proliferation from happening somehow, somewhere in the world. In fact, I think that is more apt to happen as a result of the thinking and the development that occurs here by our scientists than the reverse. We have no idea what these great minds can be thinking, but the great minds of the other scientists in the world are thinking about them also. As a matter of fact, we heard some statements about Russia thinking about them as if we ought to be afraid of that, because if we do not do it, they will not do it. If anyone believes that, they probably would believe almost anything. They are busy looking at whatever kind of new nuclear weapons that do not break any of the agreements with us. We will soon be greatly reducing our arsenals of heavy weapons, and at the same time other countries and their scientists will develop nuclear weapons. They will be developing low yield ones, too. They will be developing low yield ones with very different ways of using them than we ever thought. We ought to have the very best looking at how that might happen, if it might happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the 2-year wait-out period now required between applications by eligible Hispanic Serving Institutions for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to strengthen academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students. Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait-out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During Fiscal Year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants. Title V's 2-year wait-out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions' efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2- year wait-out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic Serving Institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait-out period for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black Colleges and Universities also do not have a wait- out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait-out period for Hispanic Serving Institutions. Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions, and preventing these institutions from reapplying for grants for 2 successive years is obstructing their development. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the 2-year wait-out period now required between applications by eligible Hispanic Serving Institutions for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to strengthen academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students. Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait-out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During Fiscal Year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants. Title V's 2-year wait-out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions' efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2- year wait-out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic Serving Institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait-out period for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black Colleges and Universities also do not have a wait- out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait-out period for Hispanic Serving Institutions. Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions, and preventing these institutions from reapplying for grants for 2 successive years is obstructing their development. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Have we already agreed on a list or are people still able to add to it?

Mr. DOMENICI. Do you have a list?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order this evening on this bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be no further amendments in order.

Mr. DOMENICI. I renew my request.

Mr. DOMENICI. I renew my request.

Mr. DOMENICI. You have had it in mind most of the day. But, no, they have not. I am just kidding the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw the request.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a question.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his leadership in providing much needed assistance to our Nation's hospitals and doctors. Specifically, I would like to thank him for his support of the disproportionate share hospitals--DSH--program, and for his support of fair and equitable Medicare reimbursement for America's doctors. The Medicaid DSH program is an essential program that provides relief to many of our Nation's safety net hospitals; hospitals that experience financial difficulty because they treat larger numbers of the uninsured, low-income, and Medicaid patients. By raising payment rates to these hospitals, the DSH program helps to alleviate the disadvantaged financial situation suffered by many of these hospitals, and helps to ensure that all who need access to hospital care are able to receive that care. Under current rules, a state's DSH payments may not exceed an allotment amount that is set in law for that state. In my home state of New Mexico, DSH payment adjustments are set at less than 1 percent. This 1 percent is far less than the national average of 8 percent, thus classifying my state as an ``extremely low DSH state.'' This lack of funding has seriously threatened the viability of many New Mexico safety net hospitals, and it puts at risk the care of some of our neediest citizens. Today however, as a result of the work done by this body, Medicaid DSH allotments for States like New Mexico that have extremely low payments will be raised from 1 percent to 3 percent. This additional funding will help to ensure that our hospitals can continue to treat Medicaid and other low income or uninsured patients, and it will help relieve some of the pressure on our State's budget. In addition to the assistance provided to the DSH program, this Congress has also taken a proactive approach to resolving another issue of great importance to me, fair and equitable Medicare reimbursement for America's doctors. In many Medicare payment localities, current Federal policy undermines a doctor's ability to see Medicare patients by establishing disparity in reimbursement levels. Rural physicians are among the lowest Medicare dollar reimbursement recipients in the country, and I submit that this is the reason these areas cannot effectively recruit and retain their physicians. This practice is unfair and it is discriminatory. There is not reason doctors in Albuquerque, NM should be paid less for their time than doctors in New York City. Doctors should be valued equally, irrespective of geography. Today, Congress has agreed to fix many of these inequities, and has provided for a more balanced reimbursement formula. By increasing Medicare physician reimbursement, we will improve patient access to care and increase the ability of states to recruit and retain physicians. When Medicare physician reimbursement rates are raised, patients are the ultimate beneficiaries. I have enjoyed working with my colleagues, including Senator Bingaman, on these very important issues.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to yield momentarily to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, who has worked for many years on this amendment. Suffice it to say, every argument the distinguished Senator from California made, and she made many of them, has been brought before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. They have been raised time and time again at many of the informal and formal hearings regarding this legislation. In the end, in the interest of getting something done that was uniform and that would work, they have all been denied. Efforts as she has put before us have been denied heretofore. I submit it is time for the Senate, at the earliest possible time, when we can, to vote. We should turn it down and leave in effect the national policy that is before us on ethanol, that has been so eloquently discussed on a number of occasions already in the Senate, and even today discussed by the distinguished Senator from the State of Ohio. With that, I yield to the Senator from Ohio for further comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici and Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 1051 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is pending before the Senate?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Feinstein second-degree amendment to the ethanol amendment to S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. I might say, if anyone cares to speak on either the amendment or the underlying bill or, for that matter, the comprehensive energy bill, the floor is open for that purpose. I have asked the majority leader if it would be appropriate to have a vote on the Feinstein amendment, a vote on it or in respect to it, this evening. He has indicated that sometime after 7 o'clock that might be in order. I am not asking for that at this point, but I am just saying to Senators that probably will happen. If there are no other Senators desiring to do so, I will myself move to table it sometime after 7 o'clock, when it is deemed appropriate by the majority and minority leaders. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meeting during the session of the Senate on May 13, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing the nominations of Mr. Nicholas Gregory Mankiw, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisors, Executive Office of the President; Mr. Steven B. Nesmith, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Mr. Jose Teran, of Florida, Mr. James Broaddus, of Texas, Mr. Lane Carson, of Louisiana, and Mr. Paul Pate, of Iowa, to be members of the Board of Directors, National Institute of Building Sciences.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on Media Ownership in SR- 253.