Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to 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 Thursday, July 17, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. This is the second in a series of hearings devoted to the improved understanding of the governance of the Department of Energy laboratories and approaches to optimize the capability of those laboratories to respond to national needs. The purpose of this second hearing is to contrast the management of science and technology resources by the Department of Energy with management of such resources in other agencies and in the private sector towards the goal of suggesting approaches for optimizing the DOE's management and use of its science and technology resources. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to 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 take place on Wednesday, July 16, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly to be a Member at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at 202-224-1327.

Mr. DOMENICI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry: What is pending before the Senate?

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from New Mexico desires to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was in my office and I regret that I was unable to be in the Chamber when the distinguished majority leader, Dr. Bill Frist, gave a rather elaborate, detailed, and enlightened discussion regarding illnesses, ailments, cures, and the evolution of diseases in this country and in the world. I commend him for that. Had I been in the Chamber at that time, I would have taken the opportunity to present him with the first document that the Senator from New Mexico is having printed. It will be something that I choose to call ``The Hope-filled Senator.'' The hope- filled Senator is the story of America's future in terms of diseases, prescriptions, and cures. It is my own story of what I believe is going to happen to prescription drugs, to the medical profession, and to the delivery of health care over the next 30 to 40 years. I am hoping that this very brief summary of the hope-filled Senator's thoughts will be of some help to Senators and people who are so worried about the costs of prescription drugs. Will it really work; will we really have enough money to do it or not? Today, I will not repeat the contents of this hope-filled statement that I delivered as the Senator from New Mexico, calling myself a hope- filled Senator. Suffice it to say that when one discusses a program of the magnitude of this prescription drug program, that it is absolutely imperative that it is looked at from more than one vantage point. One vantage point is to look at it as Senators did on the Senate floor, in the back rooms and in caucuses. We talked about the specifics of who is going to get the drugs, how much is it going to cost, will we have enough money, and are we going to be able to pay for it? We asked will America go bankrupt? Will Medicare really survive and will it be competitive? Are we really building into the system? We examined the ingredients that are so well known for bringing prices down. We examined competition for delivery and competition for business. All of that is one way to look at it. One must look at it that way, but another way to look at it is to try to think of what is going to happen to health delivery and medical care during the ensuing 10, 20, 30, or 40 years. The hope-filled Senator is talking about those things as he looks at the next four decades. By way of recapitulation of what was in my statement of a hope-filled Senator, there are three or four big things. We finished mapping the chromosomes of the human anatomy. We call that the genome system. That means that after years of mankind researching to try to find where in the chromosome of the human body was the aberration that caused multiple sclerosis, and years of research at various institutions to locate the gene, or the number of genes that caused, perhaps, schizophrenia--what we finally did in a record period was to take them all, map them and index them. We can say we know where they all are. We do not have to go looking for them anymore. I do not mean to make this a big thing, because people sometimes think they do not have to worry about it. But this is a big thing. For years, even in our lifetime, we can remember reading a story that would leave the medical journals and be big enough to hit the newspapers. The story would say, ``Michigan State group of researchers discover the location on the genome system of a multiple sclerosis gene.'' Remember that? Boy, that was big time. Soon, I am going to hand to the majority leader the first copy of a document called ``The Hope-filled Senator.'' I am going to have it encapsulated with gold print. It is the hope-filled Senator's other side of the story. It is the story of the delivery system of health care during the next 40 or 50 years as it most assuredly will impact on this prescription drug system. I did not go bother a bunch of scientists in putting this document together. So, they may find this document lacking. But what I did, and I repeat it now because our leader is in the Chamber, I used four or five big things that are going to change. I started with the genome mapping, indicating that we have now located the aberrations on the chromosome system of the anatomy of every known disease from which mankind suffers. Why is that important in the hope-filled Senator's dissertation regarding prescription drugs? Because there is no question during the delivery system that we tried so valiantly to find out how much it is going to cost. During that time many diseases for which we are spending huge amounts of money in prescriptions are going to be cured. Researches will know where where the illnesses are and they will be able to research how to fix them. And, they are going to fix many of them. What does that mean? That means many of the expected costs that the Congressional Budget Office plugged into their estimates are going to be different. Indeed, there are going to be prescription drug breakthroughs that come from this genome mapping that are going to clearly indicate that there are different ways to do what we are doing today. We can achieve better results. So, as I said this will dramatically change the delivery system of health care. I was foolish enough, as a hope-filled Senator, to predict that before the turn of 40 years the hospitals in America will not be the hospitals of today. I predicted that we would have hospitals that are going to be more concerned with genetics than with the individual curing of an ailment. I did not dream that up. When I first started working on genomes, I had a magnificent, wonderful doctor who egged me on, and he was the inventor of Tylenol. He used to sit in my office and talk with me. He used to draw what he thought a hospital might look like in 30 or 40 years. I used to laugh and throw the drawings away. He drew a center where you would check your gene system and they would tell you, as you left, what was wrong with you and how they would fix you. Or if you got sick, that is what they would plug in. That would be the hospital. He is still alive; he is currently practicing as a very old doctor. He joined up with doctors who are down in the South delivering health care to poor people free. He does this just because he wants to keep on being a doctor. He was so thrilled that he hooked me on this concept that we never lost contact. In this hope-filled sermon, we start with that. Then I said, the American economy is going to change so rapidly in terms of its productivity and, at the same time, produce new things because of nanoscience. I defined nanoscience as the newest science that is so unique, and so way out, that today's scientists are saying we will not recognize the products that humanity will be using because of nanoscience. They are practicing a science of changing the molecules that make up a substance. Imagine, compare that with making zinc by adding a couple of compounds. That science is today's industry. They will be changing the molecular makeup so things change and become something different. It is predicted with the five centers that exist in America today on nanoscience, and many more to come, that the breakthroughs, once they start, will occur with such rapidity that the productivity in America and in the world will change. That means those who make medicine and cures will be part of picking up that change and those breakthroughs also. The third that I am aware of, and there are probably some I am missing, is a most incredible science. For lack of better terminology it is called microengineering or the production of microengines. I visited the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. They wanted to show me microengines. I thought, you have to be kidding; what kind of engines could there be that are so small they have now reached this level? They showed me. Microengines are so small. Now we have in the computer business a chip, and on the surface of the chip we can put these different things, and that is how we get these millions of megabytes. Now it is trillions and numbers we did not even used to use. They actually create engines that are so small they put them on a chip, but they can be synchronized and organized as engines on that little chip. The engines look to me something like an oil patch when you see the drilling wells with the pumps. They are so small you could never see them unless you used an extremely powerful microscope. What will happen with these engines? We do not know. But, they have a hypothesis. It is entirely possible that one of the first things we will do with these engines is organize them so well that we will be able to inject them in the human body. They will be directed to do some work, and they will do it like they are told. And, believe it or not, they possibly will go in and eat what you want them to eat. They will be able to go into the heart system to open up areas we worry are clogged. These little microengines will dissolve those clogs for you. Those are engineers that can do that work. We will not even have to send patients over to Vanderbilt University to a bunch of scientists or heart specialists. There will be huge numbers of breakthroughs if we add those three things to a vibrant American economy. We must not mess up by causing the American economic system to go to sleep. We must keep the economy vibrant, by doing the right things in terms of taxing the right things and not the wrong things. If we continue to fund the right research instead of the wrong things, and we keep on funding NIH but maybe we reach the point where 10 percent a year might be enough and maybe we move over and fund some physical science like the Energy Department and a few other institutions of our Government that are doing basic science so physical science can catch up with the biological sciences. There will be huge numbers of breakthroughs. My hope-filled delivery dissertation says: Don't be so worried about whether we will be able to deliver on what we promise. We may be able to deliver even more than we think we are going to deliver. And let's just watch out that in putting the system together--and I know the majority leader has been worried about this--that we don't just put bureaucracy in place where it inhibits the injection of these new things into the delivery system. That is why HCFA, which this Senator personally as a young Senator found was such a terrible inhibitor to delivering appropriate care had to be changed. The management tool had grown so big that all we heard as Senators when we went home to our hospitals, to our doctors, to our clinics, to those centers that were taking care of people in shelters, all we heard was HCFA is messed up so badly that we are doing worse with their rules than if we did not have any rules. It was so bad once that I thought I would come back here and introduce a bill that recommended we experiment with 100 places where we will treat seniors with no regulations. We would look at them once every 6 months. And take a chance and see if they are not better run and the people taken care of better and cheaper than those who have to have someone checking off every time an apple was delivered to a senior that happened to have been decayed, if it was brown and faulty. At one time, you had to note that you delivered a bad apple, literally, to a senior. Now, frankly, I know a lot about fiscal policy. I know a lot of experts on this bill who are worried about whether we are going to have enough money to deliver under this system. But I chose to go over it and spend a little bit of time on it. Once I decided we were going to try this and to talk about this, I say to my friend, the majority leader--yesterday afternoon while he was still burdened, I sat down and wrote on a piece of paper what the score would be at whatever hour we voted last night. What I wrote down was the vote would be 78 yes, and 22 no. The vote turned out to be 76-21. I think I know what happened to one of them who would have made it 77, the Senator from Pennsylvania. But I think it became pretty clear to people like me that the Senate was ready. I had a hope they were ready, because even if they weren't, I had a hunch they had some hope we could get this done.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you so much for your comments. I was very pleased to yield. I just want to say, without hopes and dreams in these fields, there is no question we are overwhelmed. It is hopes and hope-filled ideas that keep us energized. But it does not mean we do not have a big job because, as a matter of fact, the hopes can truly be deenergized by systems that do not let it work. That is what we have to worry about. In my opinion, the breakthroughs are going to be so rapid that the bureaucracy that manages the change is going to have to be looked at all the time by people who really know. The breakthroughs will occur, and it will make your 5-year example--of how long it took for the heart to go from being done to being accepted--it will make that example pale as compared to the breakthroughs that are going to be over and over and around here and over there. We think the new bureaucracy--which the Senator and others helped put together--will make that work better. I do want to hold the floor. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about my friend, Senator Strom Thurmond. I do not have any prepared remarks but I want to speak for a few moments about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Strom Thurmond spent many, many years sitting in the seat, for those observing the Senate Chamber, right next to the seat where the distinguished majority leader is sitting right now. I have eight children. Senator Thurmond, as everyone knows, lived a very long life with his first wife without children. I don't know if that had anything to do with his huge interest in asking people such as me how my children were, and I am not one who is very loathe to tell people about my children's successes. So he used to say to me, and to anyone around, he would point at me, and say: ``There is the Senator with all the smart kids.'' Of course, I was embarrassed, and I would bend down and say: ``Senator, there are lots of Senators with smart children.'' Then he would say: ``Well, you told me about one'' . . . and he would explain what I told him. He would ask, ``how is that one doing?'' Well, obviously, those days are gone now. I was privileged, with my wife Nancy, to go to the wedding of his daughter here in this town not too many years ago. It was a beautiful wedding, a big wedding. It was a beautiful daughter and a beaming father, Strom Thurmond. He was already past 90, for certain, and how thrilled he was to walk down the aisle and to be part of the normal wedding activities. I note that with all the blessings he has received in his life, and all the legacy that he leaves, he got one blessing that he deserved; that is, that wedding and that marriage yielded his first grandchild. And I just wonder because he had already left the Senate; he was no longer here; he was in a hospital, but I just wonder, how happy that day must have been for him. He had a grandchild at that very old age. There are Senators, such as from his home State, who have known him through campaigns and actions and activities that I hear of. I have read of these activities, but I did not participate in them, so they will do better than I in talking about him. But I am 71. I am very lucky, I feel, in that I have spent 31 years in the Senate. The only thing I did prior to that is, 6\1/2\ years before I came here, I accepted a dare from a group of friends to run for an office. I ran and got elected. And that office was for city council, which put me in a mayorship of sorts in our biggest city. So you know, if you write down, at 71, what I have done: I ran for a nonpartisan office, got elected, served 4 years, waited 2 years, got elected to the Senate, and came here. But we all know, if we are going to put down what Strom Thurmond has done as a public servant, all of which clearly is one's legacy, it would take me quite a while to discuss it all. Just his military career would be a rather good speech and a rather good talk on the Senate floor. The other thing that, to me, is of such rare, rare importance is that when you consider 100 years, and that 80 or 79 of those years he was an adult, you just think of all the things that have changed during his adulthood. Governance, governmental changes, cultural changes, philosophical leanings and tendencies of our great country changing. You have to conclude that this man, who represented a State that also changed and had become a great industrial State, and a great educational State, with fantastic educational institutions, that this great man also learned how to change. He changed with time, not changing in the sense of giving up but rather of gaining more for himself and becoming more rather than becoming less. Now, I have known a lot of great Senators, more than most, because there are only five or six Senators who have been here longer than I, as of today, maybe five. So I have known a lot of them. I think it is only fair to say, for his family, for Nancy, for his children, there really have never been any Senators like him that I have been privileged to know. He was indeed unique. He was so different that you cannot forget him. First, he was so personal to everyone. He was never forgetting. He was always considerate. He spent more time and effort at little things. I know nothing about his constituent work. Let those who know speak. I speak of little things here in the Senate. The Chair and I both watched during a week at the end of a day's work, we watched Strom Thurmond while he was still around and healthy and walking. We watched what he did. He went with his staff from one event to another, perhaps three, four, five events an evening, because he had been invited and because it was somebody who said: ``Would you come to my party?'' ``Would you come to my fundraiser?'' ``Would you come to my birthday?'' ``Would you come and join me; we have visitors from my State.'' What it was that made him that kind of person, who knows? I don't know. You don't know. The Senate doesn't know. I am not sure his family knows. But the truth is, we know he did that. All of these would appear, what I have said so far, to be things that one might say are not very important. Well, I stated them because I think they are very important. They are of utmost importance. I think they are the essence of who he is and what he is and what he was. But don't let anyone think he didn't do his work. When you look at the committees he chaired, the events that happened during those chair- filled years, be it on the Judiciary, on Armed Services, or whatever, you have to know he had a great capacity for work and he did his work and got it done. Can you just imagine not having a chance to know him when he was a judge? What a great judge he would have been. Can you imagine, not having a chance to know him, what a good school superintendent he must have been? Can you imagine not getting to know him, what a good commissioner he must have been at the local level where he governed? For I believe he is what he was. And it is probable that he took care to do everything right and he took care to be concerned and worried about people, as he did his job, and that he never forgot the people who were good to him and meant something to his success. I, for one, am very sorry we will be going to a funeral. But, I guess it is really only fair to say that he has been very blessed. After all, we won't, any of us, ever go to a funeral for a fellow Senator who has lived 100 years--none of us. This will be the only one. Because he has been very, very blessed. The Lord has been kind and decent to him. Those around him should be very proud. Obviously, his kinfolk are sad. I remember at that wedding, while we were celebrating youth, his daughter was a young lady. I remember meeting his sister, two sisters I believe. They were alive and there. I don't mean to cast any aspersions about the fact they were alive. They were lively, I assure you. They knew a lot. They were talking. They were carrying on conversations. Strom Thurmond was talking with them about us and my wife Nancy. They were quick to ask us to sit down, and you could hardly believe that a man almost 100 was there with sisters at a wedding for a very young daughter of his, who has just since then had his first grandchild. What a beautiful, beautiful tribute all of this is to Strom Thurmond's family, to their heritage, and to those around them and those who love them. My wife Nancy and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Nancy and all of the other kinfolk, to his relatives, and clearly to his daughter and son-in-law who have that young grandchild of whom he must be so proud. 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 a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m., in Room SH- 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the reasons behind the high price of natural gas, its affect on the economy and to consider potential solutions. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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 Scott O'Malia at 202-224- 2039. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on July 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., on issues related to forest health problems in our Nation's forests. The Committee will examine impacts of insects, disease, weather- related damage, and fires on public and private forest lands. Processes for implementing forest health and hazardous fuels reduction projects on public and private lands will also be examined. Witnesses will be requested to suggest changes needed to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of projects to reduce hazardous fuels and to combat the spread of insects and disease infestations. The Committee will also consider S. 1314, the Collaborative Forest Health Act; H.R. 1904--the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, as well as other related legislation that addresses these issues. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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, Washington, DC 20510-6150 prior to the hearing date. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878) or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I believe it is absolutely fair and nothing more than simple equity. We have had an asset test under Medicaid, which applies here, since 1988. It is $4,000. That means there is an income test and an asset test of $4,000. I believe the time has come to change that $4,000 to something more reasonable--not gigantic, just $10,000. It says the income test still applies, but you can own assets up to $10,000. It also says you do not have to fill out all kinds of forms. You can sign an affidavit under penalty of felony, as to what your assets are, and that suffices. If there is anything this bill needs it is simplicity. So this adds simplicity to this form. But most of all, for the poor people, it permits them to own a car today. You know, hardly any cars are worth less than $4,000. I think you can be poverty stricken and still own an automobile.

Mr. DOMENICI. I believe the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about this legislation. Perhaps some will not recognize my speech at all because I know there is $12 billion to be resolved, and I understand it is going to be resolved. I am speaking as if we have finished our work and we are going to vote. I am here to tell the Senate and anybody interested why I am going to vote for this legislation. First of all, we need prescription drugs for our senior citizens. Secondly, we have a situation, of which I am absolutely positive. From what I have heard, if I were attending the meetings in the Democratic caucus, I would hear the Democratic Senators who are informed on the subject stand up and talk about how bad this bill is. I would hear them say that it does not do enough, that it does not take care of enough poor people, that it does not have enough choice, and that all the seniors who are currently on Medicare are expected leave and go somewhere else. That is not any good. And just as sure as that is going on, and I have inquired before making this speech if that is the case, I go to our Republican caucuses, and I hear one Senator after another speak about the shortcomings of this bill. Some speak about it with a clear-cut: ``I am not going to vote for it.'' But many speak of it in terms of: ``I just want to let you know how bad I think it is. I don't want to talk you out of it, I just want to tell you how bad it is.'' One Senator after another, then another: ``I just want to tell you how bad it is. It just won't work.'' Then somebody else on this side begins speaking about it from fiscal policy, and they say: ``It is going to cost too much. It is going to break us.'' And there are Senators in the other caucus saying: ``We are not reforming the Medicare system, and it's going to go broke. We are just adding more debt to that system.'' Now again, I have not been there, but I asked. Then I go to our caucus, and I hear the same thing: ``The Medicare system is already somewhat bankrupt. It is not going to have sufficient money in a few years. We are going to have to start finding money for it somewhere. And this is going to add, some say, $4.5 trillion.'' That is what we have been hearing in our caucus. Some are saying: ``No, I don't want you not to vote for it, but I just want to tell you about all these problems.'' I want to tell you I am going to vote for it because I am a hope- filled Senator. I am hope filled about the future of the American economy and American prosperity. I am hope filled about American ingenuity, American breakthroughs, American science achievements, and American wellness achievements. I want to tell you about why I am hopeful. First, we have mapped the human genome system during our lifetime. This means that we currently know where the aberrations in the human genome system are, and where all of the major diseases lie within the chromosome system of the human anatomy. That is an unheard of achievement. Why do I speak of it while I try to talk about Medicare and prescription drugs? Because we are not living in a stagnant world. We are not living in a world that during the next 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years that we are going to have just what we have today in terms of wellness, in terms of prescription drugs, in terms of curing illnesses. We are in the midst of the most gigantic breakthroughs in wellness. We are in the midst of breakthroughs in terms of finding cures to all kinds of human ailments and all kinds of drug breakthroughs which are going to cure people and make them well. There sits that breakthrough called the mapping of the human genome system. At the same time we are passing this bill, science is far from stagnant. There is going on in science today something called nanoscience. Nanoscience involves the actual manipulation of atoms to create new systems and new products. While we are wondering if we are going to be able to afford this drug system we are currently putting in place, out there in all kinds of centers of higher learning, American scientists and scientists in the rest of the world are developing technology involving the manipulation of atoms to create new systems and new products. I believe within 15 to 20 years there will be so many new products and things that will be manufactured and made that will add to the productivity of America. I mention it because it makes my vote tomorrow on this bill hope filled. I believe there are going to be productivity changes, there are going to be drug cures, there are going to be medicinal cures, there will be wellness cures. All of these things are going to happen because we are not going to be living in a stagnant system. We are going to deliver under this prescription drug bill the drugs our people need; principally with the money going to the poorest, who need the most help, and then moving it upwards so that those who are least in need will get the least help. While we have Senators on each side finding fault with the proposal, which probably means it is pretty good, we also find them saying: ``We can't afford it.'' I am here to suggest we can afford it. As a matter of fact, I am here to say we can't afford not to do it. I am here to say with all the breakthroughs that are going to occur, we must put in place a system that is more apt to take advantage of those breakthroughs. I believe the distinguished leader of the Senate who has spoken on this subject is correct. If we have these HMOs and PPOs and these delivery systems, they are more apt to take advantage of the breakthroughs that are going to occur because of nanoscience, because of the genome, and then because there is also a huge new system called microtechnologies. Microtechnologies, believe it or not, are going to create all kinds of tiny little engines, engines that are going to be able to do all kinds of things that make products and solve problems and cure health problems. The microtechnology system means that little tiny engines will be produced on a chip just like the chip that we now talk about. There will be engines on that chip. And, if you look at that chip with a microscope, you will actually see little engines working. Those engines may, indeed, be put in the human body to go after certain ailments and just take them on as little engines. And the illnesses will disappear or perhaps be ameliorated. All of these things are going to happen. Nobody at the CBO, nobody at the other agencies who have evaluated whether we will be able to pay for this bill and whether we will be able to deliver on this bill, have figured in those kinds of gigantic breakthroughs that are going to occur in this American system. In fact, none of them are figuring the productivity breakthroughs that are going to occur, in this Senator's opinion, from nanoscience and microtechnology breakthroughs. Nor are they taking into consideration breakthroughs on the medicinal side that will result from our continuation of funding the NIH at about 10- percent growth a year. I add one caveat. If I were voting on this bill and were asked, ``What should you do in addition to this bill?'' I would adopt a resolution that would require mandatory funding of the physical sciences at about 10 percent a year just like we did the NIH for the next 10 years. Then you would have the great instruments of breakthrough--the NIH, the National Institutes of Science, plus American ingenuity and business. You would have the physical sciences funded at a much higher rate than we are funding them so that nanoscience and the others I have spoken of can have their breakthrough day. So that we can, in fact, deliver what we plan to deliver under this bill. I close where I started, by saying: For all intents and purposes, the bill is finished. It is probably not perfect, but no democracy can draw a perfect bill. It is probably better than those who are saying how bad it is, and it is probably slightly worse than those who are running around saying how great it is. But it is pretty good in terms of a delivery system that can get us started and that we can always change. I don't fear the fact that we have a large group of Americans coming along, the generation that we are worried about, the baby boomers. I am not concerned about how we are going to pay for them and how we are going to take care of them. I believe the breakthroughs I have just discussed generally will be specific breakthroughs that will be occurring rapidly in large numbers, every year for the next 20 to 30 years. I believe that 20 years from now we will not recognize the prescription drugs being delivered today. We will not recognize what the drugs are being delivered to cure, and what they are curing because we will have made so many changes. And, almost all of these changes will be for the positive. By applying human ingenuity, human knowledge, human capacity to such basic research as the human genome or the mapping of the chromosomes and the aberrations on the chromosomes which create diseases, we are going to find cures so that we won't have to be paying the drug costs because we will have found the cures for the sicknesses. I thought it would be a good 15 minutes, maybe 10, while we had a few lax moments, to at least let one Senator put some comments in the record that sort of set the tone for what he will be thinking about when he votes on this rather celebrated bill. I will be thinking about all the people we are going to help today, tomorrow, and next year. But I will also be thinking about all the changes that are going to occur because of these great sciences that I have just spoken of. We won't recognize what we are taking care of in 10 years. We won't recognize what medicines we are delivering. We won't recognize what diseases we are curing. And, frankly, it is entirely possible that we won't recognize the hospital system that we have delivering hospital care to our people if, in fact, the genome system really works as some people think it will. Some are saying within 20 to 40 years we won't even have hospitals like the ones we have. There will be different kinds of institutions that will be delivering health care because of the capacity of the genome system to deliver health care in a completely different way. I hope that these words at least are helpful. They are to this Senator. They make me feel that I have something to say beyond coming down here and reading a bunch of numbers, which I used to have to do ad nauseam when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, and try to make all kinds of predictions on how you are going to have enough money for this, that, or the other thing. To tell you the truth, this program is a close call in terms of whether we are going to be able to pay for it. It might be a close call as to whether it is the best program we can put together. But I tell you, it is the right thing to do. We don't have anything like it today, and our people, in particular poor people, suffer because of it. We ought to fix this as soon as we can and then go to work keeping an environment in our economic system that is vibrant and healthy. We must do this so that our system can do the things that I have been discussing over the next 15 or 20 years as this prescription drug benefit delivers the prescription drugs we are talking about. I understand my time has elapsed, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today as we move toward the American Independence Day holiday to honor a group of dedicated people in Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico who have launched a major project to ensure that their war dead are never forgotten. These citizens, led by Walter Patrick Limacher of Hondo, are compiling and publishing the ``Lincoln County and Mescalero Apache Tribe Honor List.'' This list includes the names of all those from this mountainous southern New Mexico region who gave their lives defending the United States in World War I, World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam. As families and communities rally on July 4th to celebrate the 227th birthday of our Nation, the honor list organizers understand that our celebrations are made possible by the servicemen who came from their very own small communities and ranches to take up arms in the name of liberty and freedom. The honor list serves to unify this region of New Mexico, equally paying tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The list reads like the history of New Mexico itself, including warriors of American Indian, Hispanic, Anglo and other descents. The collection has been a joint effort of a great many, from tribal and county citizens and officials, to the Department of Defense. My distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, Secretary of State Colin Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson have all issued citations to the list. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Limacher for his dedication and tireless work. I, too, take pride in honoring these servicemen. They are all specially honored in this record. The Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe Honor List will be presented to surviving family members of those who served, and placed in libraries located throughout south central New Mexico so all can remember these great men. The stories of these brave servicemen from Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation are forever unfinished because of the circumstance of their deeds, but their sacrifices do not go unnoticed. The honor list will create a unique bond between future generations and the past fallen heroes. They are all heroes who fought for their country and gave their lives for our freedom, liberty, and independence. Because of their courage we are what we are. To them and their families, and to all our men and women of our armed services past and present, I salute you this Independence holiday.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise before you today to pay respect and to commend the accomplishments of a great New Mexican. Frank A. DuBois has given the past 30 years of his life serving the agricultural producers and citizens of New Mexico. His vision and philanthropic attitude is clear when looking back to the deeds accomplished by this great man. On June 1st, Mr. DuBois retired from his position as director of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture after 15 years. During this time, Mr. DuBois also served as cabinet secretary for four Governors. Throughout his tenure with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Frank worked as a field inspector, agricultural policy specialist, assistant director and, finally, director. In addition to these great accomplishments, Frank also worked as my legislative assistant and then went on to serve as the Deputy Secretary for Land and Water Resources with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Frank has also dedicated a large part of his life to the rodeo. In fall 2000, Frank set up the Dubois Rodeo Scholarship to help aspiring rodeo athletes at New Mexico State University. To date, 18 students from NMSU have received financial aid to help them focus more on school and their rodeo activities, rather than having to worry about meeting the financial burdens of college life. The most amazing aspect of Frank DuBois is that for the past 13 years, he has been living with multiple sclerosis. And yet this debilitating disease has not stopped Frank from accomplishing so much. In December 2000, Frank received the DreamMaker Award from the Going the Distance for MS Research Foundation. He was diagnosed with MS in 1990 but has not wavered in his dedication to the people he serves. Frank's life should be an inspiration to us all. Even living with MS, Frank refuses to give in. He has received six prestigious awards for his unwavering dedication to New Mexico since 1995. I could not stand here and talk about Frank without also honoring his loving wife Sharon, who has been on my staff for many years in my Las Cruces office. Sharon has stood beside her husband through the toughest of times. She has devoted her love and time to help Frank realize his dreams and those who know her personally are greatly appreciative. Frank's retirement from public service will most definitely be felt by New Mexico, and he will be greatly missed. He has dedicated a great portion of his life to the advancement of the heritage of New Mexico, and even in his retirement, Frank has committed to help develop his Rodeo Scholarship and to focus on his own personal health. Frank, although your retirement will be felt by many, I thank you for your past dedication and your promise for a continued commitment to the youth of NMSU.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Leader, every time you pointed to this group, the most important fact about it is they don't have any prescription drugs. When you talk about the other groups, they may have. But this group doesn't have any today.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I was watching the majority leader's discussion in my Senate office. I was so pleased that he chose to give the history of Medicare and his personal understanding of where we are that I thought I should come down and be present, at least as he finished. I congratulate Senator Frist. I am going to say something that is perhaps outrageous. I do not think it is possible that previous Senates, as they passed great health care programs--Medicaid, Medicare--or when they passed Social Security in the Franklin Roosevelt days, I do not believe there can possibly be a Congressional Record that has an explanation of something as complicated as this that is as competent, as good, as understandable as this, and I commend Senator Frist for that. First of all, Senator Frist understands the issue. Second, we are very fortunate that he happens to be a great doctor who decided to be a Senator. That does not happen very often either in history. Combine the two, and then we were pretty fortunate--we Republicans, and then the Senate--that we elected him as leader. Frankly, as his good friend, the truth is, Senator Frist had not been around here long enough to be the leader. But we picked him anyway. How lucky we are. Frankly, he has not missed a step. This year will end, as it started, with one success after another because of his leadership. This bill will pass. Seniors will know more about this program than any comparable program because of Senator Frist, because of the way he has handled it. As a matter of fact, those who talk to America on all the talk shows, whether they are for this or against it, whether they call it too liberal, too generous, whether they call it wrongheaded, whether they call it a Kennedy program that Republicans have been suckered into--whatever they are saying out there, the truth is, it is very bipartisan, and there is nothing wrong with that. I was telling Senator Frist the other day that Social Security and Medicare heretofore in our history were not passed with equanimity of support. However, once they were passed, regardless of what has been said partisan-wise out there, the support has been just about the same by Democrats and Republicans for Medicare funding and Social Security funding. We have all agreed to save Medicare and save Social Security. It is just about Democrats and Republicans doing the same thing because it seems that somehow the seniors of the country bring us together. We end up being one, and that is happening here. The Senator would admit, would he not, that we are taking a chance because we are drafting something enormous, and a huge portion of it is going to have to be administered by both private companies and by the Government. It would seem that we are trying in these models to give our seniors choice, to build into a model something we have left out of medical practice, and that is preventive medicine and group practice. The majority leader gave an example of where perhaps somebody who is sick will actually be treated by a team if they are in a PPO. That does not happen today unless it is an extraordinary fee-for-service doctor who has a lot more than just a doctor's office but has all the equipment and two nurses who are treating people. We also are hoping people will say they are comfortable, but maybe they ought to move over and try this broader scope of coverage. I will tell all of my colleagues that my good friend, the leader, knows a lot about my ailments. I have been pretty sick for the last few years; in fact, for 4\1/2\ years. I have something wrong with my hand that causes unabated pain and the leader has been very helpful to me. The other day he was explaining the PPO system to me. He slipped and talked to me as one of America's senior citizens. He started laughing as he said it. He said: Well, you are, aren't you? I said: That's true, I am. I'm 71. He laughed and said: It would not be too easy to tell you, Senator, just move on over and get into a PPO. I said to him it would not be easy. I want to be honest, it is not going to be easy for a lot of senior citizens. The point is, they are going to find out from their neighbors, their friends, through their relatives, and, if it is done right, from their doctors, that moving from traditional Medicare to the PPOs, the group coverage which will also have the same prescription coverage, is a better way for more Americans. That is our hope. As a matter of fact, I think I am correct that is the hope of the system. That has to happen if this new system is going to work properly. I ask the Senator, is that a fair assumption?

Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, what was being said in this Chamber--not as well as the Senator from Tennessee says it and not with as much knowledge--but what was being said was everyone would benefit if we went to the HMOs. The patients will get better care. Prevention has a better chance of inserting itself into the system than the traditional way. We have now--and not because we are great thinkers and because America plans things very well, but we have moved in the direction of PPOs that is professional units--and HMOs, which are privately managed delivery groups, they are no longer a surprise to the doctors. Some still sit home, like in my State, and wonder what is happening to the world. It is passing them by and it is no good. The truth is, millions are trying managed care and hundreds of thousands of doctors are practicing that way.

Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.

Mr. DOMENICI. Right.

Mr. DOMENICI. The other thing I wanted to close with, and it seems to be quite obvious, is there is no question but that some of our best Senators have already, or will speak about this plan, and they are worried. They will speak with trepidation and principally they will talk about two things, but the big one will be it is going to cost more than we think. Can we afford it? There is another question that is asked around, and that is: Are we giving benefits to the right groups of people in the right quantities? I served on the Budget Committee for 28 or 30 years. I was chairman 14 times. When I left the Committee, I could have given a little speech and said, here is what is going to happen over the next 10 years, and here is what is going to happen over the next 15 years. Of course, I could have predicted cycles, that we are going to have big deficits, and we are going to come out of them and we are going to get bigger ones. I probably could have talked about the fear of the baby boomers and our ability to pay what we have said we are going to pay them when their day comes. That is lingering and that is kind of washing its way through this debate. The question is not, will we, because we will pay. The question is, When we get there and we have to make all of those payments, how are we going to pay for it? Frankly, I do not think that is a reason to say we should not do this. We do not know whether in 15 or 20 years we will be able to have a balanced budget. In fact, if someone were to ask me--and the Senator is not asking me--I would say in 15 years we probably cannot, regardless of the economy. The choice is to do something for the seniors on medication, which we know we have to do. Or we can choose to do nothing because we are worried about how we are going to handle this. Or we can say when that day comes there will be another great confrontation, and it will very simply be a confrontation about how do we change this, for it is not written in stone like the Ten Commandments? How do we change them if we have to? Or, God forbid, how do we change the fiscal plan of the country, whatever that is, in terms of putting a tax to pay for what? Now, it is not embarrassing to admit that. It seems to me that I ought to say that. I know that. I am very lucky to know that, and it cannot be that I am wrong. People cannot say I should not tell Americans that, because it is true. I was fortunate. I have heard every economist. I probably deserve a degree in economics. I did not take economics. I took chemistry and physics. I have heard Alan Greenspan 20 times in my life. I called him up on the Energy bill. When I need somebody to tell the world there is a shortage of natural gas, I call an expert. I say Alan Greenspan will find out if it is true. And sure enough, he will tell the world. When he does, they listen. He tells Members the same thing I am talking about here. But it does not mean we should not do this. How can we leave a system that has seniors without prescription drugs because we have questions about what will happen in 20 years? We don't. We move on ahead. The Senator mentioned in passing the mentally ill coverage. I don't intend to inject that here. But we cannot forget about the mentally ill in our country and the fact they are not covered by insurance because we have problems. We cannot say, well, we have problems, so forget about them. Because the system made a mistake and did not include them, we cannot run around and say we made a mistake. Half the people that are in the gutters of America are there because they are homeless, because they are mentally ill, because there was no insurance when they were little kids and they end up from about 15 years of age onward doing nothing. We cannot say there is no solution. To that end, I thank the Senator for his assistance with reference to that group of people. Last, your eloquent speech about the greatest wellness research program in the history of mankind, that is what I call the program the Senator described when we mapped the human genome. There is no greater scientific wellness research program. It delivered to the hands and minds of the scientists of the world the chromosome makeup of every serious disease known to mankind. They said, as if to challenge the scientists, Here it is, here is where they are located within the chromosome system; solve it, scientists. What a fantastic thing to have been a part of. I thank the Senator for commenting on my involvement.

Mr. DOMENICI. They can stay there.

Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator remember--well, he was not in the Senate yet.