Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 108-233 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report, which is now available, be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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 Tuesday, April 27, 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 sustainable, low emission, electricity generation. 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. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Doubled in 1 year. Is that right? Doubled. Now, there is nobody asking for an antitrust evaluation, that somebody gypped them. These companies just put out the reality. A big portion of fertilizer is natural gas or the products therefrom. We can do something about natural gas. We do not have to sit around saying the President ought to do it. We ought to do it. Shame on us. It is right there in this Energy bill. One, do you know where a lot of natural gas is? It is ours. Alaska. This is not ANWR. This not an anti-environmentalist issue. We ought to produce it. But it does not do any good to produce it because you have to use it. So you have to bring it all the way from Alaska down here and use it. What does the Energy bill say? It says we are going to help make that happen. In fact, the contracts to start the drilling and start the pipeline to bring it down here will start within a very short period of time after we get an Energy bill. What will that be? It will be that three major companies will begin the exploration and development of natural gas, and a pipeline to bring it into America and right into Chicago, IL. We sit here with each day passing and we cannot do that because we cannot pass an Energy bill. My friend says: Well, we want to let everybody vote. Everybody has had votes, it would seem to me, on something as important as this. We could ask the Senators, how many votes do you have? Then at least we could tell our leader it is not going to take forever. We have a limited amount of time. He doesn't want to bring it up and take 3 weeks on it. The minority leader has been telling this Senator we are going to get it done. He has heard me be rather questionable, not of him but of the reality. In addition, on natural gas, there sits off our coast a huge repository of natural gas. It doesn't belong to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. It belongs to us. We know it is there. But it is super deep. It is not like the other wells we have drilled on the coast. It is super deep. Guess what. It has a huge royalty on it they have to pay America when they produce a barrel or whatever the unit is of natural gas. This Energy bill says that is too much. What would they do if we cut it? Do you know what we would do? The energy companies say they would start drilling because they would be rather assured that with the risks that are there, they will come out pretty good. We sit around and complain. There it is, sitting in the Energy bill, nobody does it. That is two. A third one was alluded to by my friend Senator Bingaman, although I think I would disagree as to the scope, but he says we ought to produce more off our Federal lands. Let me tell you, the Federal lands belong to all our people. We go out there and find oil or natural gas, and guess what happens. Big complaints. We should not be touching America's great property. We should not touch that surface. It should be there forever because it has been there forever. They don't let us do it, so we are stuck with pretty much the inventory we have had. At least the bill expedites the drilling, expedites the permitting, expedites the production. And why wouldn't we pass that? Because we don't want an Energy bill. Because we have something stuck in our head somebody didn't get a full opportunity to participate in it. Maybe we ought to call another meeting of the Energy Committee and bring them all in and let them all participate and then report out the bill. Then they at least wouldn't have that constant drumbeating which they even take to their conference to tell everybody, the committee Democrats got shafted. I have told you all more than one time that is not true. Besides, if we had done what they say, which we didn't, I ask Senator Grassley, how many times have bills been produced when Democrats were in power and Republicans--where the conferees produced it unilaterally? Does the Senator know of any? Many times. Many times Republicans produced a bill and then called in the Democrats and there is an argument and maybe they make a change or the Democrats when they were in control produced a bill in conference. Isn't that right?

Mr. DOMENICI. Or they issue it. They go to the press and say, we are finished. And sometimes nobody even knows what they did. That is not the case with this bill. They knew what we did. If they didn't, they weren't paying attention. We told them where it was, and it was all on the Internet. We tried something new. We put it on the Internet. The third thing we ought to do is take a real look, although this Senator hates this, that we are going to end up dependent more and more upon foreign countries for natural gas. I tell my friend, we are now dependent on crude oil. We will be here, if we don't do something, saying we are now over 50 percent dependent upon natural gas. That is generally called LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is hard to do. It causes accidents. It wouldn't be done unless the price is very high. But in recent months, imports of this have popped up into terminals in Eureka, CA; Harpswell, ME; La Jolla, Baja, CA, Mexico; Mobile, AL; Vallejo, CA; Searsport, ME; Falls River, MA. Every single one has been blocked by local opposition. I think local participation is terrific. But I also think having enough energy to run the country is terrific. And I don't like the idea we are going to have LNG, but we are going to have lots of it. How many natural gas powerplants will be built, I ask my staff, when we finish this bill? Almost every future one, whatever the number, will be built from natural gas. We have already built a number of them, so it is the number built and all the future ones. That is a monster gobbling up of natural gas. This bill says, we can't do much about that. We can't stop it. But we can produce alternative sources of electricity, the source that runs electrical powerplants. We can have a clean coal program that for the first time does it right, and clean coal can be used some places in our country that won't have to use natural gas. Before we are finished, we might get to the point where under certain circumstances we could try a nuclear powerplant to see if we are not ready, after years of delay and years of ridiculous objections, to get one. There are many more things to say. But I want to say that to come down here and have charts saying the President of the United States isn't acting and if he would, he is the one who ought to fix these problems is belied by the fact we can't vote on an Energy bill in the Senate. If it isn't good, amend it. The problem is, most of the things in this bill people want. They want them sufficiently to have a majority vote. I know that because I didn't put this bill together in a vacuum. We asked people. I forgot to mention by coincidence a great big spectrum of the American economy gets helped by this bill. There are probably 40 Senators who don't like it, 42; 58 love it. That is, the production of ethanol from corn and related products. Here sits Senator Grassley, one of the leaders in that cause. He isn't leading that cause just because he is selfish about corn growers. He is leading that because it is a good policy to produce a substitute for imported crude oil. But we have a farming industry we are constantly having to bail out. We do a bill, and if 3 years pass without two emergency bills in the billions, then I haven't been here. I have been hiding under a seat. If this happens, it would add a third leg to the production of these kinds of products and the stabilizing of the price. Why don't we do it? There are plenty of votes. But we don't want to vote on this Energy bill. Why don't we want to vote on it? We hear the same old thing, Democrats weren't in the markup on the conference, and they should not be burdened with having to vote for it. It has been on the floor. It has been voted on. It was put on the Internet. I don't know how much more we can do. That no longer ought to be an excuse. I want to beg, I want to beg Senators on the other side, I want to beg Senator Daschle to get Democrats to agree, and Senator Bingaman, to a reasonable number of amendments. A reasonable number of amendments will get all the issues they want, that you want, if you want to offer amendments, get all the issues you want. I don't think you have any. But if you can't get it up, what good does it do; right? We don't know if there are 20 amendments or 50, but we think a reasonable number will address the controversial issues in this bill. In fact, you let me go out of here, tell me, Senator, bring back the controversial issues, and I will bet you we will come so close to what they really will be it will shock you. We know where the concern is. We know why people in their interests don't want this bill. That is the way it is. If you come from a part of the country this doesn't help enormously, you have been trying to do an amendment and you don't win. Is that new? How many times have you had that, Senator Grassley?

Mr. DOMENICI. While Senator Bingaman is still on the floor, might I say, Senator, we have an energy bill pending that has received 58 votes in a cloture situation. Some like it. Some don't like it. You are somewhere in the middle and you want to change it. I wonder, in light of your talking today, at least what I heard, positive about the problems and solutions, and I also heard a couple of comments that made me feel good--you think we ought to produce more from our public lands which is very good and I am very proud of that--I wonder why the Senator would not agree to a number of amendments so we can get the energy bill passed? Even if you were to say you need 13, you got 13 proposals, even if you agreed to 13--I don't know how many of those are legislative--but it would be helpful. I wonder if the Senator has any thoughts about that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I say, Senator, your concern about the impact has gone on so long that one wonders how much impact you really need. We did expose this entire proposal, put it online so everyone could see it. Maybe your staff or you did not see it, but we did that as a new way to expose it. Then we had a meeting and you had every opportunity to offer amendments. And you did. You and your staff somehow got in your craw here that because you were not sitting around the table when it was drafted, that is justification for you to remain against this bill. Let me state, it is not Bill Frist's problem that we do not have this bill. Has the Senator seen what happens to bills that have an open end on amendments? I think the Senator has. The Senator is a very good Senator. They get nowhere because all kinds of amendments are offered. That is what will happen to this bill. I say to the Senator and his staff, you can offer 25 amendments around to people so they can offer them. They are not very important, but they can offer them. I say to the Senator, I did not mean you would, but that can happen, and they would not be important. They would make us vote on them, and we would get no bill. Now, the minority leader has been urging we move ahead. I am very proud of him. He has been urging that you limit the amendments, and it is on deaf ears. So I say to the Senator, I want to tell you, in all honesty, for you to come down here, having had your people research and blame the President of the United States for these problems--which is essentially what you have done--you have found everything that somebody thinks the President could do, and you listed them. I am going to go look at them--because it is not the President's responsibility--and I am going to come down here and answer them. I believe what we are going to find is that this country is dependent, and we will stay dependent if we do those 13 things you have listed that do not require any legislative assistance. I thank the Senator. Now, having said that, I would start with a chart, if I had one, saying what the Senate can do, in cooperation with the House, instead of what the President can do. Then I would say, the Senate does not want to do anything, and then I would say, some Senators want to do things; and I would name them. Then I would say, but some do not; and I do not know if I would name them, but you could conclude who does not want to. Now, I want to tell you, you can give all the speeches you want about the crude oil dependency of the United States. That is what makes gasoline. I do not think anybody, sorry to say, including my good friend from New Mexico, has a real solution to that problem. We are 70-percent dependent, and it is growing. If anybody thinks they have a solution to that problem--I understand some people say, why, the President, he ought to get these countries around the world to produce more. Well, the President is not a miracle man. They do not want to produce more, because if they produce less they make more money. What are you going to do about that? The only one that maybe would is Iraq. If they get over this problem, maybe they will say: Boy, we need a lot of money. We will put more crude oil on the market. But I will bet you, if they do, somebody will cut production. What can the United States do about it? This is not America doing it; it is some foreign country. So we hear more and more people say we ought to stay out of foreigners' business; right? They are against anything that would be involved. I am not suggesting that we be involved in any fisticuffs- type way, but I do not see how somebody, including the President, can fix that problem for the time being. I am very hopeful some of the price spikes that have come with new regulations--and I am not saying it is the entire add-on, but it is significant--will kindly stabilize and will not be adding to it. I do not have it with me today, but if I speak again I will put it in: How much of the cost increase is ours because of new additive requirements to gasoline, especially in certain huge States? I am not opposed to that, if that is what they want. That is what we voted on. But if that causes a 10- or 15-cent increase, then we ought to know about it. It is big. It is not the whole thing. Let me repeat, there is nobody who has come up with a solution-- whether we bring the Democrats into the hearing or whether we did not or we bring them in the way we have--we do not have any proposals of any significance that show us how to get more crude oil of any substance. That is why it is most important and almost ludicrous when people write editorials about this Energy bill and they start off by saying it does not do anything about gasoline. Well, the only thing we can do about gasoline is, one, have less cars in America. Wouldn't that be nice? You try to do that. How many votes are you going to get? Ration cars in America; it is a new bill. It would not get one vote. The other way is to mandate that we use littler cars. We tried. I am not saying I did. But we voted on it. What am I supposed to do as chairman of the Energy Committee? The Senate does not want to do it. They say what we are doing now is moving in the right direction and we are not going to do anything else. So the President says, well, at least get started with a hydrogen engine. We did that in this Energy bill. We put in a lot of authorization money, and we are probably going to spend a bunch of it telling the major car companies: Produce, produce hydrogen cars or the next generation of cars, and we will be your partner. Now, that is not bad. Having said that, let me say what I would like the Senate to be part of. What the Senator from New Mexico would like the Senate to be part of is to produce a bill that says to the American people: We got in trouble once by depending more and more and more on crude oil, until today it is gone. We are never going to get this back down to the 50- percent figure that the occupant of the chair used to talk about. It is gone. But do you know what? Our people are getting burdened by something else called natural gas. If they do not use natural gas in their house and have seen the increase, let me tell you, it just so happens that natural gas is a tremendous product. Do you know what I mean? It has tremendous uses. We are sitting around waiting for 13 new powerplants in America. I see present on the floor a Senator who used to come down and talk in favor of coal and the coal miners. Well, any growth in that is gone, except if this Energy bill passes it is not gone because there are tremendous resources put into developing new technology so we can use some of that. But, in the meantime, every single powerplant is waiting around to guzzle up natural gas. What do you think that is going to do? Bring the price down? Of course not. That is electricity. What else do we use? Has anybody bought fertilizers? Are there any farmers in the Senate? There is one sitting here to my right. What has happened to fertilizer prices?

Mr. DOMENICI. You have a bill and you work on it, and Senators quickly run down and say, my gosh, this isn't going to help my State. But you cannot fix them all. So you proceed. They lose most of the time, but they never give up. On and on. That is all right. But it ends. I would like the bill to get called up. I would like us to vote on it. I would like the American people to know the contents of the bill. I have given you some today, and I hope what we will do each day this week and next week will bring down six or eight of the major policies, big ones. In this country, you cannot build new electric lines in certain places. You end up with what is called gridlock. You come this far and you run into a State on the other side that says you cannot get any right-of-way under any circumstance unless the people agree. They are not agreeing. Why should they? They don't want a pipeline, but America needs it--or an electric line. You know what we did in this bill, what I did as chairman? I got the majority, including Republicans, to agree you go about your business trying to get that done. But after a period of time, if you cannot, and it is found to be in the best interest of America, FERC will condemn you on it. We haven't gotten too much guff on it. A lot of people say, don't get the Federal Government involved. Who is going to do that? If we come up to that line, OK, if you want more electricity, where are you going to get it? That is a lot of places. It is fixed in this bill. I cannot do any more. There are a lot more and they are pretty good. Yes, some are not so good. Senator Grassley has made a big push for wind energy. One would wonder why Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, would do that. But his State has made a push for it. This bill has a major new emphasis on wind energy. It is terrific. It continues the subsidy we have had that has brought this industry into motion. But do you know what? It is going to stop because what is needed to keep it going is in this bill. It is the same for geothermal and solar. I don't know what else to do. I have left it alone for a couple of months, thinking maybe somebody would do something. All I can do is, sooner or later, come down and say it is just not right--not right for our country, not right to blame other people when it is right smack in our lap. So I think we ought to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sorry if I inferred that somebody sent you here. I don't mean that. I can only tell you what they told me. They told me yesterday that you would be here because they asked you. That is all I have to say. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it was said nobody objects. I object. I don't insist on a vote, but I am going to conference, and neither of those Members advocating it are going to conference.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am speaking now to the chairman of the committee. May I ask him a question, please, or his counterpart? You were going through a list of amendments. We all try to be prepared so we can be helpful to you. I heard an amendment by the Senator from New York. I asked the Senator from New York, who is on the floor, if she had one. She didn't. It had something to do with the energy bill. Are you aware of what that is? Could we ask the other side what the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York regarding the energy bill is. Who knows? You don't know either.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will only use 1 minute. First, I have the greatest respect for the distinguished Senator from Maine, but let me say to everyone here, you all remember, SPR is to put oil in the ground in case we have an emergency. We use it in an emergency. The Energy Information Administration's last forecast predicts by the year 2025--and SPR is future thinking; it is not today; it is thinking in the future--they say by the year 2025, we will be 70 percent dependent on imported oil. The point of it is, we can never have too much oil in SPR. The idea was a good idea. It is even a better idea today. To say we ought to stop filling it so we can start filling gaps in a budget, especially saying we take care of all the inland security problems by not taking care of SPR, seems to me to be the wrong thing to do. I could find a lot of things to do in Government. If we could just sell all the oil in SPR, we could take care of every program in this Government. My colleagues could all go home. We would have about $150 billion. We could just spread it everywhere. That is much the same as saying: Quit buying it and what you were going to buy, spend on other things. I hope we do not adopt the amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I say to the Senator, while he has been waiting however long he has been----

Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe 3. I probably won't use it.

Mr. DOMENICI. Fellow Senators, I normally get up to argue a case when I think I can win. And sometimes--not too often--I get up to argue a case on the floor of the Senate because I think the case deserves my argument, even if I do not think I am going to win. And who in the world would think any Senator could deny this money to the National Institutes of Health? You surely would have to be a bigger Senator than from New Mexico to argue this kind of case and win. I want to tell you something: You have heard about people in the Federal Government who want more and more and more for their agencies. We have nicknames for them. You have some; I have some. I hate to say it. The NIH is one of the best agencies in the world, but they have turned into pigs, pigs. They can't keep their ``oinks'' closed. They send a Senator down here to argue as if they are broke. Will you listen to what has happened to NIH in 5 years and you tell me that they should get this much money? And while you are doing that, ask about the rest of the sciences. Is America going to survive on NIH alone? When will we run out of physicists? When will we run out of scientists? Do you know what? We already are. We are importing them from all over the world. You go ask NIH what they need most and they will say: We need scientists to come and join us. And what do we do? I will tell you. The lead agency for America, supposedly, that invests in nonmedical, non-NIH research, is the NSF. Do you want to know how much they get? The NSF gets $3.6 billion a year for basic research. How does that strike you? Well, maybe that wouldn't strike you at all unless you knew how much NIH got. NIH, this year, with the increase they are going to get, will be $28.7 billion without this amendment. NIH has spent $145 billion over the last 7 years. And guess what that is. That is a 109-percent increase in a period of 7 years. Do you have it? They wrote these little brochures, and they ought to be embarrassed. They came to my office and I told them: You are lucky you have old Bob Michel along with you because, as far as you doctors are concerned, I would kick you out of here so fast you couldn't find the door. But I will let Bob stay here for a minute and argue. They got these kind of reports saying: Well, we are so sorry the President has let us down this year.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for an additional minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. He has only given us inflation. After all these years, he only gave us inflation this year. And they almost sound as if he is against them, the President who has funded them more than any President in history. Then we come down to the floor underfunding the National Science Foundation, underfunding research that is going to take place at NASA, underfunding science at DOE. It is never enough. Come to the floor with another amendment saying: This isn't enough. Our ``oink'' somehow is not full, and come down here and say: We can't do this; we can't do that. Of course, when you are a big science institute, you can invent something every day that you ought to do. I tell you, a 109-percent increase in 7 years is enough. If I had a little time, they wouldn't get it because I tell you, I would substitute for these other impoverished programs and make you choose. I would make you say you don't want to put any money in NSF. You want to put some more in this one. But I can't do that on this bill. I will get it done one of these days. We are going to have a choice of keeping on funding this place or funding some other science in America before we have none left. I am sorry I took your time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his consideration and explanation of this important matter.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to begin by complimenting my friend from Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on a job well done. He has skillfully navigated a difficult course to produce the Budget Resolution before us today. Congratulations. I also want to tell him that even though he has served as the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for only two short years, he has set a very high bar for future Chairmen to meet. I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate debates the FY 2005 Senate Budget Resolution. It is my understanding the Resolution before us assumes the revenue impact of enacting a mental health parity law at a cost of $2.3 billion over five years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the case because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically referenced in S. Con. Res. 95. Rather, the overall revenue number is such that it assumes Congress will pass mental health parity legislation.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Chairman Nickles. I want to explain why there is a problem. It appears that in the budget resolution and probably throughout the rest of the year, we will live within the President's proposed discretionary cap. But within the President's proposed cap level, only $131 million is assumed for Yucca Mountain if the law change is not enacted. However, the administration and many in Congress still expect that we will provide funding for Yucca Mountain above $131 million in the Energy and water development appropriations bill. Under this scenario, the Energy and water bill finds itself in the hole by at least $303 million, which is the difference between what is assumed in the Senate budget resolution and what the President has requested for Yucca Mountain, and by as much as $749 million if the allocation to my subcommittee were only to include the President's requested amount of $131 million. In order to support this budget resolution, I need to have confidence that I will have the resources available to the Energy and water appropriations bill to provide funding for Yucca Mountain without having to take funds out of other programs in the Energy and water bill such as the Corps, DOE civilian science, and DOE labs.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that has come up during this year's budget debate regarding the nuclear waste disposal fund and Yucca Mountain. I am glad to see that my friends, Majority Leader Frist and Chairman Nickles, are on the floor to discuss this issue with me. Let me start by explaining that the President requests $880 million this year in his budget for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Of that amount, $131 million is provided in discretionary appropriations under the proposed discretionary cap in the same manner as last year. However, $749 million of this amount is funded by a new proposal that will require a change in law. This change in law would take receipts that now go to the nuclear waste disposal fund and use them to pay for activities at Yucca Mountain. Let me be clear, that without this law change, the President's budget only provides $131 million for Yucca Mountain under the proposed discretionary cap. Now let me turn to the Senate budget resolution. This year's resolution assumes discretionary appropriations of $577 million for Yucca Mountain in 2005, which is same level that was enacted in 2004. It should also be noted that the resolution does not assume the change in law with respect to the nuclear waste disposal fund receipts. I ask Chairman, Nickles, I am wondering if the Senator could confirm that I am correct in my description of the budget resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I rise to speak for 2 minutes on the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution currently pending before the Senate. In particular, I want to focus for just a little bit on the budgets for scientific research. The funding for the National Institutes of Health should be my starting point. In the omnibus bill of 2003, thanks in large part to the leadership of President Bush, we met our commitment; that is, in 2003, we met our commitment to double the funding for NIH. Senator Nickles remembers that clearly, that a couple of Senators started and everybody followed, and a resolution was adopted that said--it was incredible to many of us, but we did it--let's double the NIH. President Bush helped us, and we did that. Allow me to explain these numbers. In 1998, we spent $13.7 billion on the National Institutes of Health for cancer, for all of these various diseases, heart conditions, and mental illness. When the commitment was fulfilled, we spent $27.1 billion for medical research. We need not stop there, however. Last year, we further increased it to $27.9 billion. This means we have spent $145.9 billion in the last 7 years on the National Institutes of Health--a 109-percent increase. This year we are planning on further increasing the budget of NIH to $28.7 billion. I join the President in supporting the work the NIH has done and continues to do. But I am somewhat chagrined when I see the current brochures and documents of the NIH complaining about the fact this President, who funded them at the highest increased levels in their history, who this year says we can only afford inflation--instead of saying, the President who supported us the most says we cannot keep on with that kind of increase, they end up critical that this year he did not increase their funding as much as he did in the past, saying: We must have more. He is not funding us enough. I tell you, when I read that, it is a good thing they are not down here asking for more money, as far as this Senator is concerned, because I would be on the side of saying: Enough is enough. In fact, I would like to give you a couple other thoughts about how impressive their work has been. The human genome project--for those who do not understand or remember, that project is the genome project, spelled: G-E-N-O-M-E. Not too long ago, the human genome was completed, in terms of mapping it, much ahead of schedule. The completion of this work was only the beginning. More than 300 genes for human diseases, from cancer to deafness to birth defects, have already been identified. It means in the past we would spend years of research at maybe three major institutions to locate a gene for diabetes. The mapping of the human genome says we are in the process of mapping every genetic point of every major disease in the human body at every location. We will know where they are. Then let's hope the great scientists in the future will begin to cure those incurable diseases. The NIH is doing amazing work in developing techniques to detect, diagnose, and treat many of the most devastating diseases humans face, such as cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. I hope that we can continue to fund this important agency at these record levels. I am concerned, though, that we have collectively failed to be as aggressive when it comes to funding basic scientific research in other agencies. Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. The technologies transitioned from basic research are the foundation of applied programs and eventually fielded systems. Put another way, basic research is the engine that makes our national defense, homeland security, and economic superiority possible. However, basic scientific research is not funded in a single place as with medical research at NIH. The correlative type research to NIH is something we call in America basic research--physics, computer science, chemistry, engineering, et cetera. We have no central focus point for that in America. I am not sure we should or should not. It is just a fact. In 2004, the sum total of expenditures for that was $11 billion, and that included the Veterans' Administration--we assume some of what they do is science--Interior, EPA, NASA, DOE. This is compared to $8.8 billion for these programs in 1998. In the same period of time these programs have increased 35 percent, while NIH increased by over 100 percent. I do not think America can continue to dominate the world, invent the products, maintain our standard of living with that kind of disparity for too much longer. The time has come to spend money on basic research, just as we have on medical research. It is important to note much of our scientific research is done at our universities. They have plenty of research in medical science and medical science problems. But I guarantee you, Mr. President and fellow Senators, they are very short on research for the basic sciences. The Presiding Officer comes from a State that has great wealth. They devote great quantities of that wealth to their schools, and then say: Spend it on science. Go look at the University of Texas and a few other of your universities and see where you put your money. You put it there. But America does not put it there across the board. I put this statement in comparing the two only because to keep them at such a disparate level of a 100-percent increase in 10 years in one and 30-some percent in the other is not going to keep America great. I am hopeful when we finish with this resolution, we will get on to thinking a little bit about where we are going the next decade, and maybe we should start a resolution saying basic science ought to be increased over the next decade in a substantial way, maybe even as we did with the National Institutes of Health. I only wish I could see the way clear to find the money. I would be here offering that resolution right now. Our future is just as certainly tied to our basic science moving up into a parity position with wellness research. Eventually wellness research will come up against insolvable problems. At least the technology of application won't work because we won't have the physics solved, the physical science. With that, I thank the Chair for giving me a few moments and hope every now and then somebody in a position to do something about this can join together and see if we can't get this done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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 Tuesday, March 30, 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 on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit 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. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have to go to a chairmen's meeting now, so I cannot speak very long. I did not want to let the first day go by without saying a couple of things. Senator Don Nickles has done an outstanding job, as have the Members who serve with him, working for our country, joining him in doing the very best possible job they can do. I think the budget before us, under the circumstances, is as good as we are going to get. I only hope not only do we pass it but at the end of the year we look back and say, with the exception of things that were outside of our control, it truly was enforced; we carried it out. I hope that is the case. I will come back tomorrow to make a few more remarks. When you get a budget and it is deficit time, and the debts are as big as they are, people generally are too gloomy. There are too many people running around saying how bad things are. I have been there when the deficits were bigger than they are now. I have been there when they were less. I have been there when it was balanced, believe it or not. Frankly, I think what is good to know is that the American economy, the engine of wealth day by day, is in pretty good shape. We are in a world economy that makes it very tough for America because we are trying to let the whole world get rich right alongside us. America is not looking to try to keep the world poor. It is pretty obvious that whatever globalization means to others, they have it wrong if they think the United States wants everybody else's wealth. The truth is, we buy from everybody because we want them to grow and prosper. We want their workers to make money. We want their businesses to prosper. That is beginning to happen in a rather phenomenal way. In fact, I have never asked anybody to check carefully what has happened to China in a decade, but I imagine it would be phenomenal what is happening to their people, to their prosperity, and to their opportunity to make the world a better world for everyone. While all that is going on in poor countries, America has trouble because we have to compete. We have a lot of people thinking we ought to pull out of this world. Not only pull out of wars, a lot of people think we ought to quit negotiating treaties of trade and just come home. I think we are very lucky we have a cadre of leaders for the most part who do not believe that is the way. I would be very worried if we were going to move in that direction, all of a sudden say we are staying home, we are not selling our goods, and we are not buying theirs; it will just be fortress economic America. If that were the case, it would not take us along until we would have one broken down fortress. From my standpoint, I will join with those who are trying to help America do a better job of producing goods and wealth cheaply and more competitively, getting our universities, our laboratories, and great scientists to produce out of the research room, out of their laboratory, into the technology room, and then onto the manufacturing floor. What we need is to move those faster. The great research has to turn into production in America. If only we could dream up some way to sensitize that so it would happen better and more rapidly. Researchers like researching but they would like it more if they could produce a product. If we are not there yet, there are plenty of people who do not feel that way about research. But I submit that we are going to have more and more researchers in every sense of the word who believe they are not successful until they have solved the problem, produced the product, and let America take cutting edge advancement to work at making products. Having said that, tomorrow I will return and talk a little bit about this specific budget and the deficit we have and the debt we have. But I want to close by saying I sure hope the average American is not too worried about the future. When you go through a recession for a couple of years, have two wars going on, and terrorists who ripped the heart out of your major city, and you are still in as good a shape as you are today with our economy growing, productivity growing, and more people working than any comparable day in history, you have to feel proud. For those who want to lead our country, the best way to do it is to convince them they have something to be proud of and that the future is bright. I am down here on a tough budget with a tough chairman who worked hard to get us here, and probably with many people who won't agree with it. But I am here because I also want to let people know we are going to do the best we can. We have cut taxes not only because we like to cut taxes--that is true, we do--but because we think an economy in recession needs to have taxes cut if it is going to get out of recession. We think that happened. We are proud of that. We don't want to do away with the taxes that are about to occur right now because they are the right kinds of taxes. If we are going to do pay-as-you-go, let us at least let those taxes that we cut take effect. I want to repeat in closing that I am going to start working tomorrow with a bipartisan group of Senators to produce a pay-as-you-go plan. It will include taxes, but it won't include the taxes that we have already passed that are waiting to be enforced but look 4 or 5 years from now, no more free rides for anything--no free rides for taxes, no free rides for defense, no free rides for anything. We are going to increase things. If you cut something, you also pay for it. If we can do that for 4 or 5 years and start the process so that it is credible, what a change it will have. It will be a very positive day for America and for those who invest if we do. For today, I said about as much as I can. I yield the floor. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the Senate for listening. I yield the floor.