Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we still in morning business?

Mr. DOMENICI. Is it appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico to ask to speak at this time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, across this land, our people are driving up to the gasoline pumps, and they are filling their tank. In the last 6 or 8 months, every time they filled up their tank, the amount went up, up, and up. It peaked for a while, but still, in some parts of America, it is $2 a gallon, $1.90, $1.96. Everybody understands that America has no energy policy. A few months ago, we had a blackout--remember--in the northeastern part of America, something a country such as ours should not have unless somebody intentionally and physically destroyed power lines or big connectors. But it happened because of overload, and it happened because we do not have an energy policy. Natural gas, our most plentiful fuel and the one that is best for America's future, we thought we had enough for anything forever and ever. It turns out that unless we do something to increase our supply, it, too, is going to be in short supply. As a matter of fact, as tough as it is to admit this, unless we bring some huge new natural gas supplies on in America, this great land will go from dependence on crude oil to another state of dependence: dependence on foreign sources for natural gas. We have solar. We have all the renewables. And at this time in our history, they are stalemated. The reason they are stalemated is because they need an energy policy. They need the Energy bill that is sitting up at that desk. It has production credits that existed before for all the renewables, for clean coal and its development. All of those are in this bill. The Energy bill is up there at the desk. Rising oil prices and the fact we have no energy policy is dangerous for our national security, for our environment, for jobs, and for the personal prosperity of our people and our consumers. Around the world, we are seeing increased demands for energy, increasingly thin reserves of fossil fuels, and increased instability of oil-producing countries. Demand for oil is growing. The price goes up and down, not so much because of supply but because there is no assurance of supply--interruptions, revolutions--and so America sits by and we look at it all, and I guess we would all like to say somebody else is to blame. I hear in the campaign that nobody wants to talk too much about energy. One of the candidates said we have to stop being dependent on foreign oil. I am not standing here saying that Energy bill at the desk does that because we are already 60--and going up--percent dependent, and I defy anybody to have a plan to get rid of that. I guess if you want to order Americans to get rid of all their cars and buy little ones that get 100 miles to a gallon or 60, you might do something. But nobody will vote for that. Is my time running out?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. So here is what we have to do. We have to look at ourselves and say: What can we do to produce all kinds of new alternative fuels that will give us a chance to prove to the world that we are not going to sit by and do nothing? We are going to say we are going to do something big about natural gas. This bill says some of the available outer continental gas, which is not environmentally precluded, can be gotten. We are going to say there is a huge supply from Alaska. Not the one everybody objects to. I should not say everyone. Some do, but I don't. But other natural gas can be brought to the central part of America, to Chicago, and in a few years it will provide another great source. We have language in this bill that will stabilize electricity, in terms of regions. It will put in some standards. Yes, from everything we understand, it has a real chance of doing two things: encouraging investment in electricity, which we need desperately; second, seeing that we do not have any blackouts in the future. Frankly, for the past 21 months--not alone but with other people--we have worked to develop a consensus on an energy bill. The other side, the Democrats, have insisted, because they filibustered the Energy bill, that we get 60 votes. Actually, the bill at the desk has been recrafted, so it seems to us it should get 60 votes. It is not so good that we have to get 60. Americans used to think that 51 votes would win, right? They look at television and they say: What do you mean you lost that bill? You got 58 votes. If we are filibustering, we need 60. We took out the portion of this bill that was most objectionable, and it is not in there anymore. I am not going into detail about it. Everybody in here knows it has to do with a piece of legislation that was in the original bill that held certain companies harmless from a fuel additive that was prescribed, mandated by the Federal Government, and OK'd by the Federal Government. Then when it got out in the field, if people caused it to leak or dropped it on the ground, it caused damage. So people want to make the companies that did it liable. In this body we don't want to say to those companies, ``You are OK.'' So we took that out. It is not in there. The House of Representatives has done their thing. After we passed the bill big in conference, within 48 hours they passed it. It came here. We got 48 votes. As everyone knows, we had to try to fix it. We did. The Senator occupying the chair helped. He did a yeoman's job helping us, as did many other Senators. We tried to bring it up. Senators said: We will filibuster again. If we don't filibuster, we have scores of amendments to add to it. Let me tell you, the Energy bill could do the following. Anybody who is interested in jobs ought to be for it. It would create more than 800,000 jobs. It would revitalize rural America by encouraging renewable fuels such as ethanol. It would increase the production of renewables of every kind--wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. It would build an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, encourage production of domestic natural gas besides Alaska, and domestic oil. I am not overstating the oil. We can't produce ourselves out of dependence, but we can produce more than we are producing. It can strengthen the future of the nuclear energy option, promote clean coal technology, promote hydrogen--which the President said we start with a $5 billion program because hydrogen may indeed be the fuel of the future; promote energy efficiency, increase our research and development in various technologies. On electricity, I have stated it in generalities, but let me be very precise. It establishes mandatory reliability rules for the electricity grid and promotes investment and expansion of the electricity grid. We have labored for years. There has not been an energy bill in 12 years. I don't know how comprehensive it was, but it was hard to get done, and it did a lot of things. Now we have many sound concepts in this bill. If we can reach agreement to limit debate to an agreeable, reasonable number of amendments--I suggest anything reasonable. Come down here and say 10 amendments on each side and then vote. I would like to try that. I will bet there are some on the other side who would object. Why would they object? Is not 10 amendments enough for anybody to get their ideas to change this bill considered and get on with voting on it? I think it is. But let's hear something positive. I hope we can try that. Then at least Americans will know we tried. Americans will know, as we said, we need a policy to move forward. Energy is a complex and multifaceted problem. To approach it as a single-issue problem is very small thinking and not the best way to move this country forward. The Energy bill is about big thinking, forward-looking principles that would guide us to better technologies, more secure energy, more secure resources that deal with energy and the safest operation of our energy assets. I suggest the Energy bill is a good place to start, and we ought to start soon. There is no other way. I know my time is quickly running out, but I want to close by saying to the Democrats, to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman: Why don't you let us vote? There are many Farm Belt Senators. You would think they would be for this bill. They should be. I spoke of ethanol. It is in here. Some people don't like it, but at least it is a product. It is energy that is produced here. It is renewable to a great extent, and the farmers of America would very much have another serious crop. Add it all together, I can't understand why those on the other side, the Democrats, would like to kill it. At least during this week, next week, and the week after, those concerned about renewables--clean coal, natural gas--everything I have spoken about today, they are going to know it wasn't the Republicans, it wasn't the President. It is those on that side of the aisle who do not want to let us do anything. Mr. President, I hope I am wrong. I hope after all these months we will see something positive happen. If not, we will keep insisting that we ought to vote and get something done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I honor a long-time member of my staff, Joe Trujillo. I usually call him Joseph, but my staff and most of those from my home State of New Mexico refer to him as ``Joe T.'' I do not want misunderstanding--he is not retiring, because his work is not done. However, Joseph Trujillo has served as a member of my staff, in one capacity or another, for 25 years. His always positive outlook is remarkable, and his smile is contagious. His jovial attitude and eagerness to deal with challenges is admirable. His keen understanding of people is tied to his own rich personality, and it is Joe's rich personality that I, and those from my home State, have come to know and love the most. Joe is a New Mexico native. He grew up in Los Alamos, and graduated from Los Alamos High School in 1964. He was the first New Mexico Hispanic to be awarded the Phi Beta Kappa key at the University of New Mexico. After graduating from UNM in 1968, he worked on a collaborative project to help Albuquerque's inner city poor. We first met in 1969, while I was chairman of the Albuquerque City Commission. Joe later became a City of Albuquerque employee. In 1976, he began working for Albuquerque mayor, Harry McKinney, as the city's federal grants coordinator. Mayor McKinney dispatched him to work out of my office here in Washington, and after awhile I convinced him to become a member of my staff. Right after coming to work for me in 1979, he became the member of my staff who dealt with Indian affairs. But he did much more. Over the past 25 years he has been given more responsibilities than I can count. From appropriations and budget, to banking, Indian affairs and economic development, and everything in between, Joseph has done it all. His wealth of experience is beyond compare. For all who know Joe, it has always been clear that his passion is working to help those who are less fortunate. Joe has done more for Indians than most Senators. Through the years, Joe has been instrumental in bringing tribal leaders to the table to discuss their dilemmas. He arranged several economic summits in the State to help Indians develop their infrastructure and local economies. His hard work and dedication wrought a successful economic development strategy, along with an education and healthcare plan to help Indians in New Mexico and across the Nation. In 2001, after 22 years in my Washington office, he returned to New Mexico to serve as a member of my State staff where he continues his fine work at the local level on Indian issues and rural development initiatives. Joe Trujillo is loyal, and one on whom I trust and depend. He has been a member of my staff since June 19, 1979. In that time, we have accomplished much, and I am extremely proud of those accomplishments. Most importantly, he is my good friend. Joseph, for all you have done for me, and for all you have done for the people of New Mexico; you have my utmost respect and deepest gratitude. Thank you, and keep up the good work, amigo.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I recognize the Hatch Chile Festival and to recognize my home State of New Mexico as the largest chile growing State in the Nation. Soon it will be September. For those from the Land of Enchantment, that means the recently harvested green chile is ready for roasting. The chile pepper is thought to have originated in South America. During the 1500s, Spanish explorers and colonists introduced new crops, including chile, to the Southwest. Although producers have been plagued by continuing drought conditions, agriculture continues to be a major contributor to our State's economy. Chile is one of New Mexico's most valuable commodities in terms of revenue, and is the State's most important agricultural crop both culturally and historically. New Mexico produced over 85,000 tons of chile in 2003, and planted acreage was estimated at 15,800 acres. Additionally, the value of the crop was estimated at around $41 million in 2003. The Hatch Chile Festival is an annual event which dates back 33 years. The festival celebrates the chile and its cultural influence on New Mexico and its people. The festival is held on Labor Day weekend and draws hundreds of participants to the small town of Hatch, located just west of the banks of the Rio Grande. Chile harvest usually begins in late July or early August and continues through the red chile harvest or up through the first frost. After harvest, the chile arrives from the farms in almost every container imaginable from bushel baskets and burlap bags, to wooden crates and cardboard boxes--all filled with freshly picked green chile waiting to be roasted. The roasting process brings out its robust flavor and is most commonly done using a cylindrical tumbler. During harvest season, these gas-powered chile roasters can be seen going almost nonstop--outside grocery stores, in backyards, and of course, at the Chile Festival in Hatch. The festival spreads across the entire town, making room for visitors to take in the sights and smells of the Chile festival and all its activities. The smell of roasting green chile is subtle, but unmistakable. The flavor of roasted green chile, like that of any food, is hard to describe to someone who has never experienced it. Chile, and its history, is as much a part of our New Mexico culture and heritage as hot dogs, hamburgers, and apple pie is to our national heritage. So much so, that we even have an official State question, ``Red or Green?'' In the past, the Hatch Chile Festival was a small town event which attracted mostly native New Mexicans or people familiar with the town of Hatch. However, in 2003 the Festival was featured on cable television's Food Network, resulting in a significant jump in attendance. Regardless of its new found fame, the festival has not lost its small town charm, and I expect it never will. The festival brings great recognition to Hatch valley locals, and much pride to native New Mexicans and visitors alike. For that, and for all the accomplishments of chile producers and festival organizers, I am proud, and I salute them all here in this Record. Keep up the good work, and may you continue to represent Hatch and the State of New Mexico with distinction.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current status of the Hard Rock Mining Industry in America. The hearing would provide a status and trend analysis, a review of domestic mineral reserves, a summary on exploration investments and current production as well as permitting and reclamation issues. 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, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy to introduce a bill that will raise the minimum grant amounts given to States and territories under the PATH program. The PATH program provides services through formula grants of at least $300,000 to each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and $50,000 to eligible U.S. territories. Subject to available appropriations, this bill will raise the minimum allotments to $600,000 to each State and $100,000 to eligible U.S. territories. When the PATH program was established in FY1991 as a formula grant program, Congress appropriated $33 million. That amount has steadily increased over the years with Congress appropriating $50 million this past year. However, despite these increases, States and territories such as New Mexico that have rural and frontier populations, have not received an increase in their PATH funds. Under the formula, as it currently exists, many States and territories will never receive an increase to their PATH program, even with increasing demand and inflation. This problem is occurring in my home state of New Mexico as well as twenty-five other States and territories throughout the United States. The PATH program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act and it funds community-based outreach, mental health, substance abuse, case management and other support services, as well as a limited set of housing services for people who are homeless and have serious mental illnesses. Program services are provided in a variety of different settings, including clinic sites, shelter-based clinics, and mobile units. In addition, the PATH program takes health care services to locations where homeless individuals are found, such as streets, parks, and soup kitchens. PATH services are a key element in the plan to end chronic homelessness. Every night, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in America. Of these, about one-third are single adults with serious mental illnesses. I have worked closely with organizations in New Mexico such as Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless and I have seen first-hand the difficulties faced by the more than 15,000 homeless people in New Mexico, 35 percent of whom are chronically mentally ill or mentally incapacitated. PATH is a proven program that has been very successful in moving people out of homelessness. PATH has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and has scored significantly high marks in meeting program goals and objectives. Unquestionably, homelessness is not just an urban issue. Rural and frontier communities face unique challenges in serving PATH eligible persons and the PATH program funding mechanisms must account for these differences. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Kennedy on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Kennedy to introduce a bill that will raise the minimum grant amounts given to States and territories under the PATH program. The PATH program provides services through formula grants of at least $300,000 to each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and $50,000 to eligible U.S. territories. Subject to available appropriations, this bill will raise the minimum allotments to $600,000 to each State and $100,000 to eligible U.S. territories. When the PATH program was established in FY1991 as a formula grant program, Congress appropriated $33 million. That amount has steadily increased over the years with Congress appropriating $50 million this past year. However, despite these increases, States and territories such as New Mexico that have rural and frontier populations, have not received an increase in their PATH funds. Under the formula, as it currently exists, many States and territories will never receive an increase to their PATH program, even with increasing demand and inflation. This problem is occurring in my home state of New Mexico as well as twenty-five other States and territories throughout the United States. The PATH program is authorized under the Public Health Service Act and it funds community-based outreach, mental health, substance abuse, case management and other support services, as well as a limited set of housing services for people who are homeless and have serious mental illnesses. Program services are provided in a variety of different settings, including clinic sites, shelter-based clinics, and mobile units. In addition, the PATH program takes health care services to locations where homeless individuals are found, such as streets, parks, and soup kitchens. PATH services are a key element in the plan to end chronic homelessness. Every night, an estimated 600,000 people are homeless in America. Of these, about one-third are single adults with serious mental illnesses. I have worked closely with organizations in New Mexico such as Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless and I have seen first-hand the difficulties faced by the more than 15,000 homeless people in New Mexico, 35 percent of whom are chronically mentally ill or mentally incapacitated. PATH is a proven program that has been very successful in moving people out of homelessness. PATH has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and has scored significantly high marks in meeting program goals and objectives. Unquestionably, homelessness is not just an urban issue. Rural and frontier communities face unique challenges in serving PATH eligible persons and the PATH program funding mechanisms must account for these differences. Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleague Senator Kennedy on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment. Unfortunately, because some are unwilling to address the actual amendment, we are instead holding a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the amendment. I have said it many times before, but I believe it is worth repeating: I do not take amending the United States Constitution lightly. This issue was forced upon the United States Congress, however, by a number of recent events. The most visible, and disturbing event, was the decision by the activist Massachusetts Supreme Court in which they created a right not found in the State constitution or in State law. This is not the only event that has forced us to consider the drastic step of amending the Constitution. As you may know, we recently had a situation in my home State of New Mexico in which who defines marriage was made very real. A county clerk in New Mexico decided that she would take matters into her own hands by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She did this despite the fact that neither the New Mexico Constitution nor New Mexico statutes recognize same-sex marriage. Put another way, the people of New Mexico, as represented by the New Mexico State Legislature, have not chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. Instead, we risk a situation like that which took place in Massachusetts, where an activist court legislated from the bench. I am hopeful that the New Mexico courts will not follow the activist Massachusetts court, but it is not a certainty. The Federal marriage amendment that we are considering today would ensure that the state legislatures, as elected representatives of the people entrusted with the legislative powers, get to decide. It is also important to remember: from a procedural standpoint, passage of a constitutional amendment by the Senate and the House of Representatives is only the first step. When an amendment passes both Chambers with at least two-thirds of the membership present voting for passage, it is sent to the States for ratification. Then three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify an amendment before it becomes part of the United States Constitution. This means that the States, through the elected representatives of the people, get two different chances to decide the issue. I believe our Founding Fathers were particularly brilliant both in providing a mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended and in ensuring that it is difficult to do. Unfortunately, I am convinced the actions of a few nonlegislators have put us in the position where we must use the process of amending the Constitution. Therefore, I will vote in favor of cloture so the Senate can have the opportunity to vote to send this amendment to the States so the State legislatures can act on behalf of the American people in deciding whether to ratify this amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. There is no more important or essential substance to us than water. It is the source from which life springs. It also has the potential to be the source of incredible conflict ranging from local to international levels. Fresh water supplies are coming under pressure all over the globe. By mid-century, over half of the world's population will face severe water shortages. These shortages go beyond drinking water; particularly important is the nexus of water and energy production--another flash point in global affairs. Seriously confronting this problem before it leads to tremendous burdens on this nation and the world is an endeavor as worthwhile as any I can contemplate. Research and development in this area has long been without concerted national attention. Water and water rights have traditionally been under the purview of the States, and rightly so. But few States have the capacity and funding to adequately address this problem. Users of water resources are highly risk averse and can ill afford to take chances on unproven technology. At the Federal level, at least seventeen agencies do water research, however only three currently engage in water supply augmentation research--the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy. According to the National Research Council's June 17, 2004 report entitled ``Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research,'' the total Federal investment in water resources research in 2000 dollars has been level at $700m since 1967. The Federal investment in 2000 was 5 percent less than the investment in 1973 in indexed dollars. The total Federal water research investment of $700m represents about 0.5 percent of the Federal research budget--for the most fundamental resource need. Investment in Water supply augmentation research funding has declined from $160m in 1970 to $14m in 2000. These circumstances have led to neglect in long-term, cutting edge, commercially viable research and development. This is ultimately untenable. We know what is possible, we have acted successfully before. Federal investment in the 1960's and 1970's is the basis for existing desalination technology that substantially expanded U.S. and world wide water supplies. We know that a similar investment can again achieve such results. Thus, the lack of Federal investment is unacceptable given our prior experiences and our complete and utter dependence on this resource. Our nation's efforts to address these problems must be fought on multiple fronts. We must provide for development and maintenance of water infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. This is the infrastructure that sustains our lives and livelihoods. We must make our management of this precious resource more rational. We must make a concerted effort to more fully understand and extend the limits of our fresh and lower quality water. We must coordinate and enhance our technology to address both water quality and quantity. We cannot fight all these fronts with one effort, but we can begin to address aspects of the problem. To that end, I introduce today the Department of Energy National Laboratories Water Research and Development Act of 2004. This admittedly ambitious bill authorizes a substantial Federal investment of up to $200 million per year for basic and applied research and development in water supply technologies. The emphasis of this program is developing and deploying new and affordable technology to improve water quantity and quality. Its primary goal is to facilitate and guide research, development, and deployment of affordable and cutting edge technology that increases the quantity and quality of water available for multiple uses. This will be done across the Nation, in a wide range of hydrogeographies and water situations. The effort combines the expertise and resources of our great National Laboratories and universities across the country. The Program builds on the immense investment in new technology and basic science within the labs and universities and directs it toward this critical human need. It will also compliment and strengthen the many programs and efforts underway at Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. The Act authorizes the Department of Energy, through the National Laboratories, to partner with universities in specified regions to work on technology for particularized areas of research. Each region will be tasked with addressing a given range of issues. These include brine removal and inland desalination to re-use and conservation technology. Furthermore, the water and energy nexus will be fully explored. Pressures created by water needed to supply energy and energy necessary to produce usable water have not, to date, been sufficiently addressed. A grant program will be created to augment existing efforts by non- program members. Many Federal agencies and non-governmental entities have ongoing projects in this arena including the Bureau of Reclamation (``BOR''), the Department of Agriculture (``USDA''), the Department of Defense (``DOD'') (through the Office of Naval Research), the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), and NASA. Additionally, the Program fully incorporates public-private partnerships such as those already working with the American Water Resources Research Foundation, the WateReuse Foundation and many others. Finally, this bill creates a National Water Supply Law and Policy Institute. The Policy Center's responsibilities include identifying intervention points where technological development may help alleviate real and potential water supply problems. The Policy Institute will act as a clearinghouse for relevant information on regulations, laws and codes--from municipal to national scales focused on helping to overcome obstacles of new technology that can expand water supplies. The Program will be administered by a Program Coordinator appointed by the Secretary of Energy. The Coordinator will administer the program from facilities located at Sandia National Laboratory, our Nation's best applied engineering lab. Acting as the coordinating institution, Sandia is responsible for technology development road-mapping and assisting the Regional Centers in transferring their creations from bench-scale to commercialization. Sandia is also charged with guiding the Policy Center. The conditions are present to necessitate the Federal government taking a lead role. We must act now. The costs of inaction will be borne by all of us. The market is skewed against development. It is a matter of personal and national security. It is a matter of human necessity. It is a matter of time. The need is great. The goal is good. Let us begin. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. There is no more important or essential substance to us than water. It is the source from which life springs. It also has the potential to be the source of incredible conflict ranging from local to international levels. Fresh water supplies are coming under pressure all over the globe. By mid-century, over half of the world's population will face severe water shortages. These shortages go beyond drinking water; particularly important is the nexus of water and energy production--another flash point in global affairs. Seriously confronting this problem before it leads to tremendous burdens on this nation and the world is an endeavor as worthwhile as any I can contemplate. Research and development in this area has long been without concerted national attention. Water and water rights have traditionally been under the purview of the States, and rightly so. But few States have the capacity and funding to adequately address this problem. Users of water resources are highly risk averse and can ill afford to take chances on unproven technology. At the Federal level, at least seventeen agencies do water research, however only three currently engage in water supply augmentation research--the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy. According to the National Research Council's June 17, 2004 report entitled ``Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research,'' the total Federal investment in water resources research in 2000 dollars has been level at $700m since 1967. The Federal investment in 2000 was 5 percent less than the investment in 1973 in indexed dollars. The total Federal water research investment of $700m represents about 0.5 percent of the Federal research budget--for the most fundamental resource need. Investment in Water supply augmentation research funding has declined from $160m in 1970 to $14m in 2000. These circumstances have led to neglect in long-term, cutting edge, commercially viable research and development. This is ultimately untenable. We know what is possible, we have acted successfully before. Federal investment in the 1960's and 1970's is the basis for existing desalination technology that substantially expanded U.S. and world wide water supplies. We know that a similar investment can again achieve such results. Thus, the lack of Federal investment is unacceptable given our prior experiences and our complete and utter dependence on this resource. Our nation's efforts to address these problems must be fought on multiple fronts. We must provide for development and maintenance of water infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. This is the infrastructure that sustains our lives and livelihoods. We must make our management of this precious resource more rational. We must make a concerted effort to more fully understand and extend the limits of our fresh and lower quality water. We must coordinate and enhance our technology to address both water quality and quantity. We cannot fight all these fronts with one effort, but we can begin to address aspects of the problem. To that end, I introduce today the Department of Energy National Laboratories Water Research and Development Act of 2004. This admittedly ambitious bill authorizes a substantial Federal investment of up to $200 million per year for basic and applied research and development in water supply technologies. The emphasis of this program is developing and deploying new and affordable technology to improve water quantity and quality. Its primary goal is to facilitate and guide research, development, and deployment of affordable and cutting edge technology that increases the quantity and quality of water available for multiple uses. This will be done across the Nation, in a wide range of hydrogeographies and water situations. The effort combines the expertise and resources of our great National Laboratories and universities across the country. The Program builds on the immense investment in new technology and basic science within the labs and universities and directs it toward this critical human need. It will also compliment and strengthen the many programs and efforts underway at Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations. The Act authorizes the Department of Energy, through the National Laboratories, to partner with universities in specified regions to work on technology for particularized areas of research. Each region will be tasked with addressing a given range of issues. These include brine removal and inland desalination to re-use and conservation technology. Furthermore, the water and energy nexus will be fully explored. Pressures created by water needed to supply energy and energy necessary to produce usable water have not, to date, been sufficiently addressed. A grant program will be created to augment existing efforts by non- program members. Many Federal agencies and non-governmental entities have ongoing projects in this arena including the Bureau of Reclamation (``BOR''), the Department of Agriculture (``USDA''), the Department of Defense (``DOD'') (through the Office of Naval Research), the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), and NASA. Additionally, the Program fully incorporates public-private partnerships such as those already working with the American Water Resources Research Foundation, the WateReuse Foundation and many others. Finally, this bill creates a National Water Supply Law and Policy Institute. The Policy Center's responsibilities include identifying intervention points where technological development may help alleviate real and potential water supply problems. The Policy Institute will act as a clearinghouse for relevant information on regulations, laws and codes--from municipal to national scales focused on helping to overcome obstacles of new technology that can expand water supplies. The Program will be administered by a Program Coordinator appointed by the Secretary of Energy. The Coordinator will administer the program from facilities located at Sandia National Laboratory, our Nation's best applied engineering lab. Acting as the coordinating institution, Sandia is responsible for technology development road-mapping and assisting the Regional Centers in transferring their creations from bench-scale to commercialization. Sandia is also charged with guiding the Policy Center. The conditions are present to necessitate the Federal government taking a lead role. We must act now. The costs of inaction will be borne by all of us. The market is skewed against development. It is a matter of personal and national security. It is a matter of human necessity. It is a matter of time. The need is great. The goal is good. Let us begin. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2590, a bill to provide a conservation royalty from Outer Continental Shelf revenues to establish the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, to provide assistance to States under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, to ensure adequate funding for conserving and restoring wildlife, to assist local governments in improving local park and recreation systems, and for other purposes. 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, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kellie Donnelly at 204-224- 9360 or Shane Perkins at 202-224-7555. committee on indian affairs

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I first want to say to Senator Smith, I want you to know that since we weren't going to do anything today, I had gone home. I don't live very far, so it is not a terrible sacrifice. But I was in less than good clothes, starting a restful evening a little early when I heard what was going on and I decided to quickly--maybe I look that way--dress up and come over here, after I heard you speak. Let me say to you, I am very proud of you. I am not totally familiar with the bill, but I hope you will make me a cosponsor. I ask consent that Senator Hutchison be made a cosponsor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to talk to the Senate today about a very sad situation. I want to address these remarks at a couple of Republicans, whose names I don't know, but I will soon, who have holds on the most important bill that has to do with mental illness in America. I am very hopeful we can carve out a niche as you desire, to try to give some help to those who are suffering so much that they commit suicide, and all of the various participants in that activity from mothers and fathers to doctors to counselors--everyone. I am hopeful we will get that done. Second, I didn't hear anyone mention, but I will mention to you, Senator, the doctors, the general practitioners who see thousands and thousands of our young teenage men and women who are most vulnerable. Maybe we need an annual crash course for them because they are not seeing the basic signals of mental illness in their patients. I tell you, I am not a doctor and I am not a genius, but I can tell you, because I have already learned, what I would look for in a patient who came to me for anything so I could rule out whether they had depression; so I could rule out whether they were manic depressive, or one of the other serious mental illnesses. But I am afraid we are going to have to start with some system of insisting that our doctors find out about it as the first and biggest clearance mechanism in the United States. Having said that, I want to discuss a little bit about the worst thing happening in the United States about mental illness. First, Senator Smith, you are speaking of the effect of mental illness. Because someone is a depressive, they have an illness, and the illness may or may not lead to suicide. But there are five major illnesses that are mental, and any of them might cause suicide. But the most important thing is all of them cause tremendous sorrow and tremendous grief and tremendous misunderstanding on the part of parents and friends of those who have the disease. I might say, Senators, we have at least moved away from the stigma and everybody is at least willing to talk about these as illnesses. Everyone is talking about how do we help rather than how do we hide. Everyone is talking about getting these people who have symptoms to a good doctor so they can get both discussions going and medicines that are so helpful. Everybody is talking about that. But, my friends, the real problem is all children with these diseases are not the fortunate children of that Senator. They are the unfortunate children of poor people, of people who make a little bit of money, with a loving mother and father and a schizophrenic child who perhaps are living on $25,000 a year. The problem is they don't have enough money to have caregivers help them. Guess what. The insurance companies don't help them either because we have a definition of sick and illness in the insurance policies that is 50 years old. They did not know anything about mental illness. So they ruled it out. I don't know if you know this, but almost every group insurance policy in America writes coverage for cancer, coverage for tuberculosis, and coverage for every major disease. But when it comes to mental illness, it is either stricken or it has an asterisk down at the bottom. It gets significantly less coverage, or none. There are parents who have given up on their children because they cannot pay the bills anymore. They go look for their children in the slums; they go look for their children in jails, because there are more children with mental illness in the jails of America than in the hospitals to take care of the mentally ill people. Why are they there? Because nobody takes care of them. Why doesn't anybody take care of them? Because most people went broke trying to take care of them. Sitting up there at that desk is a bill called parity--equal--parity of insurance coverage for the mentally ill. It has been cleared on that side. It came out of committee. And somehow or other a couple of Republican Senators have a hold on it. I will try to find out who they are and I will go beg them to let us pass the parity bill. But I tell you: If it doesn't work, we are going to take it up. I know the leader wants to get bills through expeditiously. But I am going to tell him tonight, patience has run thin and we have to get it done. It has been worked through the committee chaired by Judd Gregg. He has one amendment. That is great. He has at least told us he wants one hour. But others are not even letting us know who they are, and they are holding up this bill. Let me tell you what happened to America. America has the greatest medicine, the greatest services, and the greatest caretaking machine for the hearts of our people. If you have something wrong with your heart, they know how to take care of it. They will put you in a hospital. There is coverage by insurance if you have group insurance. In the meantime, the tests, the knowledge, the information about heart conditions gets a lot of resources. Clinics are built and hospitals are built because there are resources because heart is covered by insurance. We take care of our hearts and we fail to take care of our heads, our brains. We take care of our heart and spend money on it, and we will not spend anything on mental illnesses. It is no longer a joke. It is no longer a stigma. Everybody around knows. Our President, as recently as 6 months ago, said, Don't bother me. I already know it is a disease. Let us find some way to help. That is what I say. If your bill does it, let's pass it. I am on it. I would like to pass it. But we are ready to pass the most significant bill to help anyone who has any of the major illnesses and be sure that the group insurance policy covers them. Thus, their parents can take them to doctors, parents can see to it their children get medical care rather than the asterisk on the policy that says you get less or nothing if the disease or illness is mental illness. I came down here not because I wanted to set aside or argue or contend that I have the most important bill. There were 80 Senators on this bill at one time--79, bipartisan, the bill for parity. I submit to my friend Gordon Smith, who came to the floor and told us from his heart what this is all about, that you would agree and probably would agree wholeheartedly that all of the medicines and doctors you called upon to help your son did something good. You probably are not bashful or regretful of what you paid. But how much worse would you be in your heart if you couldn't afford it and you had an insurance policy from your business group and you took them to a doctor and they said schizophrenia isn't covered because it wasn't covered when we knew nothing about it, so we are going to leave it uncovered, even when we know something about it. It is still exempt. This bill at the desk for parity is not a big cost. People say it is going to break business, and insurance companies are going to have to raise rates. We think we know what that is going to be. We are prepared to answer it. But let me tell you, I am as capitalist as anyone here. I am as concerned about business and business men and women as anyone here. But this society has a real problem when it exempts insurance companies from having to pay the cost of mental illness while they pay the cost of all other illnesses. That isn't right. I saw my friend Senator Reid on the floor speaking about his family and his father. I saw the great Senator, Senator Smith. I saw Senator Nickles also. I don't have to tell you about my daughter. You all know about my daughter. I have eight children and I have one who has been sick since she was 13. So I know all about this. I am glad we can afford to pay for what she needs. But I would feel bad if I had an insurance policy and it covered everybody else in my family for diabetes and a heart condition and didn't cover her. I think we have to pass the bill. I am really tired. When it comes to pushing, I am probably as easy a pushover as anyone around, so I just let it go by. It will come up someday. But I am saying it is going to get passed in this Senate before we get out of here. I am going to tell our leader he has been patient with me. We weren't going to do anything until it got out of committee. We told you that. We worked hard and long to get it out of committee. It took a long time. Now it is sitting at that desk. We are taking up all kinds of things while we are not able to send a signal to the 7\1/2\ million or 8 million parents who need this bill, who need some indication that we care, that we are not going to have an insurance policy that covers our heart and not an insurance policy that covers our brain. That is what the issue is about. Can you imagine a country as great as ours saying, Well, when we first started writing health insurance policies we didn't know that schizophrenia was a disease. We did not know manic depression was a disease. We did not know severe depression was a disease. We go through the years and we find out these illnesses are diseases, but since they weren't originally known to be a disease, we are going to let group insurance policies continue to exempt them. Now we know. There is no one, I say to my friend Senator Dodd, who has been a greater help on discussing the issue of whether these dread mental illnesses I have just enumerated are illnesses or diseases. Yet we let insurance companies continue to write policies as if we did not know it was a disease. From my standpoint, I will do anything in any area that will help us help those with mental illness. If you have a bill that will help prevent suicide, I am for it. But I can state that if we do not have a bill that forces group insurance policies to cover mental illness as other illnesses, the effect of the suicide bill is going to be minimized to the extent that parents cannot afford what they need.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make an observation and I will yield. When one is involved in an issue such as this for 15 years, as I have, you go to a lot of meetings. You go to a lot of meetings with mothers and fathers, with groups of those who are mentally ill. We hear the saddest stories one could ever imagine. I remember a gentleman and his wife came up to me and said: We have two children. I asked: Where are they? She looked up at him as if, Should we tell him? He was a CPA, very proud. She said: Tell him. He said: Senator, we don't know where our two children are. Well, we think they are in the slums of some city or in the jails of some city. I said: What are you talking about? He said: Well, they are both sick with schizophrenia and we don't have any more money to pay for them. We are broke. I said: Do you have insurance? He said: Oh, we have a lot of insurance, but the insurance doesn't cover our kids' illnesses. So we spent everything we had and then they got arrested because they did not act right. They don't act right. They do everything strange. They steal; if they see these little carts, they steal hotdogs. Maybe somebody arrested them for that and put them in jail. When people start telling these stories, it is not an accident, they did not tell of a one-time event. You know there has to be a lot more, right? You run into one in your own constituency--if you start running into one, two, or three problems that had to do with your mail, you would come home and ask: What is wrong with the mail? You don't say: What is wrong with the letter that came from Harry Reid that you didn't answer, but you know something is wrong when you have two or three people telling you, for a couple of days, about this thing that I just described. It is a big problem. I can tell you there is no reason it has to be. Last, there are no shelters. There is nobody in the business of providing facilities because there is no money to pay for anything, right? If money flows from the back of a mentally ill person--there is a little knapsack on him that says ``insurance''--if it flows from him, it will flow to businessmen who might build these kinds of facilities. But nobody is going to do that because there are no resources. So with that, instead of yielding to my wonderful friend, Senator Dodd, I am just going to yield the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask if I might speak for a minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to say that the parity bill, which is now at the desk, had to go through a standing committee. Senator Kennedy is the ranking member of that committee, I say to Senator Dodd. I thank him because he was pushing very hard for a long time that we get that bill taken care of. It took a long time, but it is out now, and it is in a form that very few can object to. So I say thank you to Senator Dodd and Senator Reid for giving me the reassurance that we are going to get it done. I cannot believe we are so inept that we cannot. I will, because of tonight, reinstate my dedication, and we will get it done before the session is over for sure.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. I am pleased to be working on this legislation again with Senator Bingaman. This bill is nearly identical to a bill that we worked on and marked up in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the 106th Session of Congress. The bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Pecos National Historic Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as surplus and available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. The Pecos National Historical Park is located between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley and that has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo--a major trade center--and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta Unit of the Park, where this exchange is located, protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the west. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, Senator Bingaman and I are introducing the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico. I am pleased to be working on this legislation again with Senator Bingaman. This bill is nearly identical to a bill that we worked on and marked up in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the 106th Session of Congress. The bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Pecos National Historic Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as surplus and available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides. The Pecos National Historical Park is located between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley and that has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo--a major trade center--and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Glorieta Unit of the Park, where this exchange is located, protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the west. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I inquire, how much time does the Senator have remaining on the subject matter at hand?