Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I should have said other than they will retain a competitor.

Mr. DOMENICI. If you have to extend the program in terms of the payoff, does that mean it takes care of itself and that United Airlines money put into that plan takes care of that, not the other airlines? The other airlines don't pay for it in any way?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that three hearings have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's proposed FY 2004 budget. The Committee will hear testimony from the following: 1. The Department of the Interior on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. 2. The Forest Service on Thursday, February 13, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. 3. The Department of Energy on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. For further information on these hearings, please call Jennifer Owen, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-5305.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I note that we have a little time before we are hopefully going to move on to the appropriations bills. I am very hopeful that the appropriations leaders, under the leadership of our new leader and Senator Daschle, will come forward with an approach that will permit us to wind up the business from last year that we have not finished yet. That brings to mind the business of the year we are in, which we should be working on but cannot because we have not finished last year's work. So that is why we are doing it now. The President of the United States is going to speak to the American people a few nights from now, and what most Presidents do, and the Cabinet members who work for the President, is sometime before the State of the Union they start talking to the American people about the principal problems that our Nation has and they throw out the ideas they are considering. Consistent with that, everyone knows the American economy is, at best, a growth economy without new jobs or an American economy that has not come out of a recession. It looks as though it is the former rather than the latter, because if our method of measuring things is correct, we are growing. That is, the gross domestic product is getting a little bigger every month and in a year it will be significantly bigger. Let us start by defining how big is the gross domestic product. The sum total of all actions that are worth anything in America, that is the gross domestic product: $10 trillion. We cannot even understand how big $10 trillion is. Later in the year, we will compare it with other countries'. I surmise it probably is big enough so that it is bigger than all of Europe's. We could probably add in China, South America, and a couple of more countries, and it is probably still bigger than that. For about 10 years, the economy not only was growing but it was adding jobs. As that happened, it miraculously started producing substantially more revenue than we had predicted. Nobody has come to the floor nor have I heard anybody nationally tell us why it produced so much more revenue than we anticipated. Revenue is a substitute word for taxes, tax receipts. We did not know why, but it produced billions of dollars in taxes that we did not expect. So that is why we got a balanced budget ahead of schedule; tax revenue came in about $60 billion more than we expected. So we got a balanced budget 3 years before we predicted, for which we all took credit. President Clinton took credit. Budget Committee Chairman Domenici took credit. Everybody took credit. I was chairman of the Budget Committee and we got four balanced budgets. Most of it came because we held expenditures down rather reasonably--not as much as we should have, but the revenues came in rather soundly on the high side. Then what happened was the economy went through one of the smallest recessions in modern times. By that I mean, how many months did the economy stay in the red in terms of the growth in domestic product? How long was it shrinking instead of growing? If it shrinks for very long, people go out of work, companies do not sell their product. In other words, things that create wealth are not happening when it is shrinking. So it was shrinking, but only for a short period of time, and then the measurement of the growth started going up. As a matter of fact, right now we are told that the economy is growing at about 3.5 or 4 percent. But people in this economy are not being hired, so unemployment is not going down, it is going up slightly. For those who say how bad it is, obviously it is terrible when any American is out of work, but 6.1 or 6.2 percent unemployment is seen as high unemployment only in the last 12 or 15 years. Prior to that, 6, 6.5, 7 percent was pretty good in the American economy. We have grown to expect better of it, but certainly it is not in a state of depression. People in this economy are not being hired because something is happening internally that is different. It may be the huge drop in the stock market has something to do with it. We cannot say that for certain. People do not want to believe that. Powerful thinkers say it really is not, but I think probably it does have something to do with it. In addition, investment by businesses produces wealth, so they can hire more people. What do I mean? A filling station owner buys another filling station and invests $350,000, and he hires 12 full-time people. That is an increase. To get there, he had to put money in it. Money is not being invested in new actions that cause people to be employed. What we have to do is take this giant economy, $10 trillion, and give it a kick by putting some more money into it. That will make these transactions start moving again. Anyone who comes to the Senate saying, let's have a tiny package, the President's package of $600 billion over 10 years is too much; so, what do you want? Say, $100 billion. Of that, how much goes into the economy to be spent? Well, $60 billion. And you think $60 billion will kick the economy so it will grow $10 trillion with $60 billion? The economy will not even know it happened. $60 billion is a mouse. The economy does not need a mouse giving it a kick. The economy needs an elephant and a donkey and some cars to run into it, give it a real kick. It has to have real money, not little tiny boxes of raisins. One time someone wanted to start the economy up, some president wanted to give everyone a bit of money and it was so small that one Senator said, don't bother with it. The Internal Revenue can just get up on top of buildings and drop $50 bills and people will pick them up. Sure, they will spend them. That is the real way to stimulate the economy. Of course, we did not do that. I am talking about how much. The President's numbers of $660 to $700 billion over 10 years is said by Senators on that side to be way too much. Way too much for what? The deficit will get too big. Would you like the economy to stay like it is, in a state of neutrality where it is not generating any revenue? If that is the case and you want to get into balance, you have to cut everything 10 or 15 percent. America last reduced its budget in a recessionary period when Hoover was president. That is now known as Hooverism. Or Hoover economics. Great man. Solid economist. Great geologist. A great idea. Except when the economy is not going, you do not cut the budget, you spend on the budget or you cut taxes. We will be spending, do not worry, because we are in a war. But you have to put tax cuts in place so the Government puts money in the hands of people; money they would not otherwise get. If they are already going to get it, you do not give it to them because that money is already in the economy. So you give them money they are not going to otherwise get. Cut their taxes, change the marriage tax penalty so they keep more money, reduce the brackets so you are in a lower bracket and you keep more money from withholding, and if you are a businessman you do not spend so much. I urge Senators, particularly on our side of the aisle, if they want to express their concerns about certain items in the President's tax package, so be it. But clearly we ought to keep our minds open to the size of the package needed. Republicans should not come out of this Congress on the side of being cautious about stimulating the economy. We should come out of this session saying, if people want to be cautious, let it be them. If the economy does not get better, they did it. We should forget that and go with a big package that is apt to give the economy a real kick. Nobody knows the exact numbers. Nobody knows if $600 billion, with $150 billion in the first year, is right or too much. But clearly we ought to not be so cautious that we do not do enough. If that is the case, the tax cut will be wasted, the deficit will not change, and we will need more stimulus the next year. I say to those who want the economy not only to grow but to create jobs, keep your powder dry on the size of the stimulus. It ought to be big, not little. It ought to get into the hands of the maximum number of people as early as possible. If there is some way to generate interest, real, genuine interest, in investing on the part of the public, do it. For instance, perhaps people could depreciate equipment they bought. Buy a car, depreciate it in 3 years. Let consumers depreciate in one year, they might buy a car every year. That is a bottom line entry. This is in the President's package. One of them is in; accelerated depreciation. I suggest on our side if we want to get the President's package, and if Democrats want to stimulate the economy, to produce jobs, we should work with the President and with the Budget Committee. The new Budget Chairman is Don Nickles. I did that for 17 years and now I will try something else. But, I will help him do that, like a lot of other people. That blueprint picture ought to end up reflecting people in the Senate who are concerned about jobs for people. So much talk about rich versus poor. If you are not for help with jobs, I don't know who you are for. If you are for a packaging that does nothing to create new jobs, who are you for? We want to be for a package, and I hope everyone does, that creates jobs and maximizes opportunity to create activity within this gross domestic product, that will, through new motion, create investment and jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I came down for.

Mr. DOMENICI. About 7 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 3:30, with the time equally divided and Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Are we allowed 10 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a situation that is evolving with reference to who is going to run the Senate and who are going to be chairmen of committees and how are we going to pay our staffs. I don't think the American people understand this debate, so we ought to explain it quite a few times. The election occurred. There has been a lot of talk in the country about what happened. The conclusion was: Republicans won the Senate. Now I will go back in time to the day that the distinguished Senator from Vermont formally decided to leave this side of the aisle and become independent and was ready to vote with that side of the aisle, giving them a 1-vote majority. Before that day was up, the gavels were handed to the Democrats to run the committees. So as I had been chairman of the Budget Committee, I was no more. And Kent Conrad, who had not been chairman, was chairman. So if any meetings were called or hearings held, the agenda was prepared by him, not me. Now we win an election, we come into session, we convene the Senate, and guess what: Democrats maintain they are still entitled to run the committees. I believe this borders on nonsense, but to the Democrats it must mean something. Perhaps they think they win elections by delaying what we do, by not letting us do work. Last time, they did that, we got nothing done, and they lost. Maybe we should do nothing and stay in this stalemate. Maybe we will win and they will lose again. But we don't think that way. We think we ought to get on with the business that is not yet done from last year. Remember, we were not running things last year. I am not casting aspersions, but they ran the Senate and we got nothing done. As a matter of fact, we had 11 appropriations bills that we will be debating perhaps for weeks that were last year's appropriations bills. They are not finished. The year started out when that gavel was switched from Domenici to Conrad and he became chairman. The Democrats never produced a budget resolution last year either. Again, some people do not want Senators from this side of the aisle to lay blame on anyone, but a budget resolution was not passed and it is supposed to be. The answer that was given was: We do not have the votes; or: It is too hard. I passed a lot of them. We did not have the votes, and they were too hard, and yet I got them done because that was my job. I am not saying every Senator who is chairman of the Budget Committee should produce a budget. I am saying it should have been done last year. And then we probably would have completed our appropriations bills. We probably would have gotten the appropriations bills done. Now we do not have them, 11 of them, and the other side of the aisle is waiting for something to happen other than the election, which we won, to give us the gavel so we can start to work at the Senate. Frankly, I know people are probably saying: You can't be telling us the truth. This can't be the case. It is the case. It is the case. I am chairman of the Energy Committee now. I have been told if I want to call a meeting, I am not chairman. But I am chairman. Certainly the Democrat is not chairman. They say they are, I guess, because we have not passed a resolution saying how we are going to pay the committees. Frankly, that is another issue, how much do we allot to the Democrats and how much to the Republicans to run these committees. Frankly, I didn't think, having a brand new majority leader, the first thing that would be given to him to solve is this issue. I thought we would see him down here helping us get the appropriations bills finished and get on with what we think we were asked to do by the American people in the last election. I think they were unhappy, at least enough to swing the election, because the other side of the aisle delayed incessantly the passage of the homeland security bill--incessantly. In fact, I should have asked how many days that bill was delayed on the floor and in committee because certain Senators on that side of the aisle did not like it the way it was. That is their prerogative. They wanted to delay it. That is their prerogative. They succeeded in delaying it. But we succeeded, with the help of a Democrat Senator who suggested to his own people: Is there a higher calling than the security of our country, even if it is a special interest bill? Ask the Senator from that side of the aisle. That spread like wildfire. That is why a couple of Senators on that side of the aisle lost: Delay, delay, special interests on the homeland bill. We barely got it finished. But we didn't get appropriations finished. Do you know what that means? If the American people understood what that means, more telegrams and whatever they send to us would be here on the laps of the Senators than you could ever imagine. It means literally we have not funded education, roads, all of the bills on HUD, on defense, on nuclear bombs, nuclear programs--defense we have done; all the others we have not. We have not passed the annual appropriations bills. They are operating at last year's funding levels. What they got was for 1 year. We said we didn't get our work done so just operate the same way you did last year. That is why some money is not being spent on education, because it has not been appropriated. They have not been allocated the new moneys. Up and down the appropriations bills, that is the mess we are in. And we sit here and argue about how many dollars are we going to give to the staff on the Democrat side of the Energy Committee and how much to the staff of the Republicans on the Energy Committee? I cite that because I happen to chair that committee. All I know, fellow Senators, is that in all of modern history, whichever party was ahead--by one vote or 10 votes or 12 votes or two votes--that is, however many more Senators elected on their side, they got two-thirds of the money for staff. And the side that had a minority--whether it was a three-vote minority, a six-vote minority, a 10-vote minority, which we were in sometimes--we were in an 18-vote minority sometimes--the minority got one-third, the majority got two- thirds. This year we are one vote ahead. It seems to me the rule has been that the party that is in the majority gets two-thirds, the other one- third. I don't think the rule said: but only if you are ahead by five votes, if you have five more Senators. What if it were two? Would that be enough to apply the rule? It has been six, it has been eight. But now it is one, but one doesn't work? It's not a majority? Because when we were even--remember, we were even at one time. We thought we should be running the Senate because the Vice President gave us an extra vote. It didn't work out that way. We had to concede. And we split the money 50-50, or at least we said we will not force a reduction. To me, the dollars involved in that are important, but clearly not as important as doing the public's business. They are not as important as recognizing they lost and we won, and we ought to be in control. We ought to be chairmen. Clearly, our leader is the majority leader. He is not the ``maybe majority leader''. If you call a meeting to have a serious hearing tomorrow or the next day, whoever the Republican on that committee who has been designated by the Republicans as chairman, is chairman. Why we sit here and let the appropriations for all of our Government languish while we argue this issue is beyond this Senator. I truly believe the Democrats are not going to win by this tactic. I urge them to get this resolved. The American people do not want them delaying this. They want us getting on with work together. They don't want us bickering. But how can you not have an argument when the facts are what I have just said? Apparently, unless they get the same amount of money as we had agreed upon when we were not in the majority, they believe they are not going to let us run the business of the Senate. I think it can be worked out. It should be two-thirds/one-third, just as it was through all of history, but at least we ought to work it out some way--60-40? Some way, so we can get on with our work. One hundred Senators, many new ones, are here ready to get on with their work. How surprised they must be, the new ones, ready to go to work and here we are, arguing about who is entitled to the gavel. I don't know if all those new Senators thought that was what their work was about, but here we are.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. That's right.

Mr. DOMENICI. We were asking for a few minutes because the Senator was not here. He was going to use some time.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize the exemplary and faithful service that Dan L. Crippen has provided to his country and to the U.S. Congress. January 3, 2003, was Dr. Crippen's last day as the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. In the four years that he has held that position, he has led CBO with dedication and integrity. As a respected and thoughtful steward of the agency, he has provided the Members of Congress with impartial analyses of a wide array of budgetary and economic issues and thereby provided a sound basis for Congressional decisions, and he has aided the American public's understanding of these issues through his clear and forthright statements. Some of his particular accomplishments as Director include fostering the development of long-term modeling and a long-range perspective in the agency's analyses, bolstering research support, building a stronger and more diverse workforce, securing access to previously unavailable data, and modernizing many support processes and much of the work space. Dan Crippen received a bachelor of arts degree from South Dakota in 1974, a master of arts from Ohio State in 1976, and a doctor of philosophy degree in public finance from Ohio State in 1981. He then set out on a remarkable career that has included positions of great responsibility in both the public and private sectors. From 1981 to 1985, he served in the United States Senate as Chief Counsel and Economic Policy Adviser to the Senate majority leader, working on major tax and budget bills as well as other legislation. From 1985 to 1987, he was Executive Director of Merrill Lynch International Advisory Council. He then returned to public service, this time at the White House, as Deputy Assistant to the President from 1987 to 1988 and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1988 to 1989, in which capacity he served as the President's adviser on domestic policy issues, including the preparation and presentation of the federal budget. In 1989, he became Senior Vice President of the consulting firm Duberstein Group, and in 1996, he became Principal in the consulting firm Washington Counsel. From there, he was tapped again for Congressional service and became the fifth director of the Congressional Budget Office, where he advanced its already strong reputation for objective and insightful analysis. For that reason and many others, he has earned the respect, admiration, and affection of his colleagues at CBO and, once again, the gratitude of the U.S. Congress. So on the occasion of Dan Crippen's departure from CBO, I want to salute his accomplishments and contributions thus far in his career and to say that I look forward to his continued success as he takes on new responsibilities in the next phase of his career.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, while the Senators who had expressed their concerns may be correct, I believe we should commend those who have worked so hard to get this bill here, and our majority leader for bringing it up today because, while we wait to do some more, if more is needed, we will leave all of the unemployed without any new benefits. That is the issue. To do it today is to do it the way it is proposed. To debate it, or send it back to committee for refinement, means none of them will get benefits--not only those who have run out of benefits, but there will be no extension and no money. I believe it is good that we comment, but it is better that we proceed and get the bill done. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and colleague who is retiring from the Senate after eight years of principled and distinguished service. The Senate will lose an extremely dedicated public servant and also a good bit of star power when Fred Thompson leaves us at the end of the 107th Congress. I had the pleasure of serving on the Governmental Affairs Committee headed by Senator Thompson from 1997 until June 2001. I appreciate Senator Thompson's determination in pursuing fiscal accountability and relentlessly seeking a smaller and more efficient Federal Government. Senator Thompson's leadership on issues such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies has made an enduring contribution to our national security, and I have enjoyed working closely with him on matters related to our national laboratories. I would like to thank Senator Thompson for his tireless work more recently on the monumental task of creating a Department of Homeland Security. I submit that his industry and integrity in this historic undertaking will leave him a legacy of which he should be proud. The people of Tennessee first elected Senator Thompson to the Senate in 1994, to fill an unexpired two-year term. When he was reelected in 1996, he made history by garnering more votes than any previous candidate for any office in Tennessee. A native of Lawrenceburg, TN, Thompson worked his way through school to earn an undergraduate degree in philosophy and political science from Memphis State University, and a law degree from Vanderbilt University. Only two years after law school, Thompson was named an Assistant United States Attorney. Thompson was then appointed at the age of 30 as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, where he served in 1973 and 1974. Before he was elected to the Senate, Fred Thompson operated successful law practices in Nashville and Washington and served as Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While many know that Senator Thompson is embarking on a new role as district attorney in the television series Law & Order, his talents for law and acting first came together in the film Marie, in which he portrayed himself after taking on a case in 1977 that uncovered a cash- for-clemency scandal that unseated Tennessee's Governor. Fred Thompson has subsequently acted in 18 motion pictures, including In the Line of Fire, Die Hard II and The Hunt for Red October, as well as four television series. Some might characterize Fred Thompson's uncommonly successful career in show business as a natural complement to the daily business of the Senate. What I know is that whether on the big screen or on the floor of the Senate, Fred Thompson's larger-than-life presence has touched the lives of a great many Americans, and he will be sorely missed by his colleagues in the Senate. I thank my colleague for his eight years of distinguished service in which he has enlivened the Senate and served his country with uncommon resolve. I wish Senator Thompson the very best in his retirement and all his future endeavors. frank murkowski Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my distinguished colleagues, a Senator from the class of 1980. From our seats on the same side of the aisle, I have been able to serve 22 years with my long-time friend, and colleague, Senator Murkowski. I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Murkowski for his distinguished career of service both to our Nation and his home State of Alaska, and to congratulate him. Senator Murkowski has been a great advocate of his State, which has been demonstrated by his winning 75 percent of the vote in 1998, and the gubernatorial race in this last election. As the Senator moves onto a new challenge, I wish him well with his efforts to continually serve the people of Alaska. As I look at the past seven years, and all that the Senator has accomplished during his time as chairman of the Energy Committee, I know that these will be big shoes to fill. Throughout his career, the Senator has held steadfast to his ideals, while fighting for improved veterans' health care, and the search for American POW/MIAs, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. While on the Finance Committee, the Senator from Alaska played a pivotal role in passing the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Senator Murkowski, his professional manner, and his willingness to work have made him an asset to our Senate. We, in the Senate, will be at a loss without his unrelenting will-power, and determination. Senator Murkowski has been a friend and servant to the citizens of Alaska, earning a reputation for unbeatable service to his constituents. We have always had a lot in common, fighting for the interest of our predominantly rural States. I have always been impressed with his capability to keep the diversified interests of his State in mind, while developing bills to improve and preserve the tradition, and way of life, for Alaskan citizens. Alaska will be lucky to have him as their Governor. Today I join my colleagues in offering a goodbye, and good luck, to Senator Murkowski, a tenacious man of high-integrity, for his years of dedicated service. I will certainly miss my friend, and wish him the best as he enters his new career as Governor of Alaska.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I was opposed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I was opposed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Hispanic Americans to New Mexico and this great country. I am so proud that New Mexico leads the Nation with the highest Hispanic percentage of population of any State, 42 percent. Of the 50 counties nationwide where Hispanics made up a majority of the population, 43 were located in either New Mexico or Texas. Today New Mexico received the news that five of our own have been named to Hispanic Business magazine's ``100 Most Influential Hispanics'' list. It is no surprise that our State has produced tremendous representation of Hispanic accomplishments on the national scene in the past year. It gives me great pleasure today to acknowledge the many ways Hispanic New Mexicans have made a national name for themselves and our state in military and government service, the arts, education, business, sports, and many other fields. As our Nation focuses on fighting terrorism around the globe and keeping our homeland safe, we are indebted more than ever to those serving in our military. Currently, more than 100,000 Hispanic Americans serve in our Nation's armed forces, making up about nine percent of our military. Thirty-eight Hispanics have attained the Nation's highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor. Five Hispanic New Mexicans have earned this medal serving in the United States Army, three in World War II, including Private Joseph P. Martinez, of Taos; Private First Class Alejandro R. Renteria Ruiz of Loving, NM, and Private First Class Jose F. Valdez, born in Governador, NM; and two in Vietnam, including Army Specialist Fourth Class Daniel Fernandez of Albuquerque, and Warrant Officer, then Sergeant First Class, Louis R. Rocco, of Albuquerque. April 2002 marked the 60-year anniversary of the horrific Bataan Death March, a calamitous event that involved 1,817 New Mexicans, with fewer than 900 returning home. Memorials were unveiled in Albuquerque and Las Cruces to commemorate the brave veterans of this horrific ordeal, many of whom were Hispanic. In fact, several of the veterans on which this memorial was based were Hispanic natives of Southern New Mexico who survived the march, Private First Class Jose M. ``Pepe'' Baldonado, and Staff Sergeant Juan T. Baldonado. One of the veterans of this 65-mile forced march and labor camp internment, Ruben Flores of Las Cruces, passed away this year just before the memorial was unveiled. I am pleased that this year we have created a lasting tribute to thank these members of the New Mexico National Guard for their gallant service and valorous sacrifice under conditions too horrific for words, and today I salute them once again. It has been fantastic for New Mexico that several of our citizens have been appointed by President Bush to serve in important capacities in the Federal Government. But it is also terrific for Hispanics around our nation that many of these individuals happen to be Hispanic. We are seeing greater representation of Hispanics in appointed positions and as candidates in elections around the country, and I'm proud of the New Mexicans who are blazing the trail in government service. Just to name a few, I am thinking of Lou Gallegos, now Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration; Dr. Cristina Beato, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services; and Roberto Salazar, head of the Agriculture Department's Food and Nutrition Service. President Bush has also named two qualified Hispanic New Mexicans to serve in the federal judiciary: David Iglesias, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico and Judge Christina Armijo of the U.S. District Court of New Mexico. I am so proud of New Mexico's place on center stage in the world of Hispanic arts and culture. A center for Hispanic culture for centuries, Santa Fe has recently drawn renewed attention with its Museum of Spanish Colonial Art. Last month, the Wall Street Journal provided an in-depth look at the unique contributions of this institution to the preservation of Hispanic culture in an article titled Arte Hispanico, saying, ``Though Spanish-colonial artworks are in the collections of many major museums, the Santa Fe museum is uniquely focused on illustrating the cultural connections among people of Spanish descent, showing, for example, how Baroque influences in style and artistic method traveled first from Spain to Mexico and then to New Mexico . . . '' Likewise, this article highlighted New Mexico's role as home to the Spanish Colonial Arts Society, saying, ``For more than seven decades, the society has purchased historic and contemporary Spanish-colonial artworks and sponsored markets and competitions among living artists, fostering what has grown into a vibrant commercial market for traditional Spanish-colonial arts. Some 300 artists in New Mexico alone continue to make art like their ancestors did . . . Many of the artists participate in the Art Society's annual Spanish market, which drew about 70,000 colonial art aficionados to Santa Fe's plaza earlier this summer.'' Finally, I would be remiss if I did not recognize once again the New Mexican who brought home a National Medal of Arts for 2001, writer Rudolfo Anaya. President Bush honored Rudolfo with this award earlier this year for his accomplishments such as his well-known novel ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' and his work to inspire and promote other Hispanic writers. Rudolfo is a New Mexico treasure, and I want to thank this fellow New Mexican for the fine work he has done. I would now like to recognize another citizen of our state who has had a hand in inspiring the next generation of New Mexicans. Hispanics make up the fastest growing part of the nation's public school system. Earlier this year, we enacted the most comprehensive education reform law in decades, the No Child Left Behind Act, which will help give teachers and schools the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. Joseph Torrez, the principal for the third through fifth grades in Tucumcari, NM, provides a shining example of how our teachers and principals hold the key to ensuring that no child is left behind. In honor of his outstanding contributions to the community and the education profession, the Department of Education and the National Association of Elementary School Principals selected Joseph as the National Distinguished Principal for New Mexico. Joseph created an after-school program providing recreational activities and assistance to children at risk of failing in school, as well as job training for their parents. He also helped children at his school become in new community opportunities, such as helping the homeless and visiting senior citizens. I appreciate Joseph's great contribution to his community, and this New Mexican has certainly earned the national recognition he has gained. New Mexico is leading the pack by leaps and bounds in Hispanic business ownership. Hispanics own 21.5 percent of all firms in our State, the highest percentage of any State, or a total of 28,300 businesses, according to the latest figures released by the Department of Commerce. Not surprisingly, Hispanic New Mexicans made an impressive showing this year in the business honors bestowed by the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, of the Department of Commerce. I want to take this opportunity to commend Deborah Valenzuela Baxter, President and CEO of Integrity Networking Systems, Inc. of Albuquerque, for gaining the prestigious title of Minority Female Entrepreneur of the Year. Under her leadership, an enterprise that began as a two-man operation has blossomed into a highly motivated staff of 40 with revenues of over $20 million in 2001. Carlo Lucero, President of Sparkle Maintenance, Inc. of Albuquerque was named 8(a) Graduate of the Year, after his firm this year put its 36 years of experience in commercial janitorial and building maintenance service to work in a contract for the high-tech clean rooms of Sandia National Laboratories. Finally, this year marked the retirement of a national great from New Mexico, whose achievements charted new waters for both women and Hispanics in the United States. Nancy Lopez, a Roswell native and one of New Mexico's favorite daughters, won 48 titles on the Ladies Professional Golf Association, LPGA, tour, and was inducted into the LPGA Hall of Fame in 1987. Nancy is a luminary and a pacesetter whose accomplishments give testimony to the power of dreaming big and working persistently. I mentioned that today Hispanic Business magazine announced five New Mexicans selected for the ``100 Most Influential Hispanics'' list. I have recognized several of their names already, but allow me to include for the record the magazine's list of New Mexican leaders who have blazed the trail in business and their fields: author Rodolfo Anaya; U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, Assistant Secretary for Administration Lou Gallegos; LPGA golfer Nancy Lopez; Director of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, Roberto Salazar; and Eufemia Lucero of the U.S. Postal Service. In honoring our State's Hispanic heritage, we should be very proud of the New Mexicans whose accomplishments have garnered the national spotlight and appreciation within our State because of the ways they have enriched our lives. I have no doubt that the best is yet to come. I ask that the October 17, 2002 Albuquerque Journal article ``5 New Mexicans make top-100 list'' be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Albuquerque Journal, Oct. 17, 2002] 5 New Mexicans Make Top-100 Hispanic List (By Charles D. Brunt) Albuquerque author Rudolfo Anaya, U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary for Administration Lou Gallegos, and LPGA Hall of Fame golfer Nancy Lopez have been named to Hispanic Business magazine's annual ``100 Most Influential Hispanics'' list. Also on the list are Roberto Salazar, who heads the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, and Eufemia S. Lucero, a longtime administrator with the U.S. Postal Service. The magazine's October 2002 edition says nominations for the list come from the magazine's staff, nominees themselves, readers and Web-site visitors. Nominees must be U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin and must ``have had recent national impact,'' the magazine says. ``That's something,'' Anaya said of his making the list. ``I think it's kind of far-sighted for a business magazine to include a writer.'' Anaya said people don't usually think of writers as business people. ``We're also part of the economy. I think maybe it's a wake-up call for some of the business organizations here in New Mexico to realize that we're in there punching away,'' Anaya said. ``I told my wife I was No. 1'' on the list, he equipped. ``But she told me it was because my name's Anaya.'' The magazine lists its selections in alphabetical order. Anaya, widely recognized as the father of Chicago literature, is best known for his New Mexico trilogy ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' ``Tortuga'' and ``Heart of Aztlan'' and a dozen other works. He received the Premio Quinto Sol National Chicano Literary Award for his first novela, ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' in 1972, and the PEN Center West Award for his 1992 novel ``Alburquerque.'' In 2001 Anaya was awarded the National Medal of Arts award by President Bush. Farming Gallegos, who herded sheep on his family's ranch near Amalia in northern Taos County as a child, made the list for the second year in a row. ``It is kind of a feather in one's hat,'' Gallegos said from his Washington office. Gallegos also wrote an article for the same issue of the magazine outlining the prospects for Hispanic farmers in the United States. The essence of the article is that, given that the number of Hispanic farmers has doubled in recent years, farming is still a business. The skills necessary to farm successfully have to be upgraded to keep pace, he said. For 15 months in 1989-90, Gallegos was assistant secretary for policy, management and budget under Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan, Jr., also of New Mexico. Gallegos was Gov. Gary Johnson's chief of staff from 1994 until May 2001, when he left for Washington. Gallegos also made the magazine's list in 2001. Hall of Fame Former Roswell resident Lopez first picked up a golf club at age 8 and learned the game from her father, Domingo Lopez, by following him around Roswell's Cahoon Park Golf Course. When she debuted on the LPGA tour in 1978, she won nine tournaments. During her career, she has added 39 more titles. She was named to the LPGA Hall of Fame in 1987. Lopez, 45, announced in March that 2002 would be her final full season on the tour. Lopez lives in Albany, Ga., with her husband of 20 years, Cincinnati Reds coach Ray Knight, and her three daughters. According to the LPGA, Lopez has earned $2.25 million during her career. ``Without Nancy and her fans, we would not have a $3 million purse today,'' Cora Jane Blanchard, the U.S. Golf Association women's committee chairwoman, told the Journal last summer at the start of the U.S. Women's Open. In Washington Salazar, a native of Las Vegas, N.M., was state director of the USDA's Rural Development agency in New Mexico before taking the Washington job. He held senior positions with the New Mexico Economic Development Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. Lucero was manager of the Postal Service's Executive Resources and Leadership Development Program for two years before being named human resources director. She also has held several management positions with the Postal Service's Albuquerque District office.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to help construct and occupy part of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico. This bill will help the University of New Mexico finish a state of the art museum facility to store, and display the National Park Service's Chaco Collection. Let me give you a bit of background. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt founded the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park in Northwestern New Mexico. The Monument was created to preserve the extensive prehistoric pueblo ruins in Chaco Canyon. The height of the Chaco culture began in the mid 800's and lasted over 300 years. People built dozens of complex multi-storied masonry buildings containing hundreds of rooms. These complexes were connected to communities by a network of prehistoric roads. I helped to establish the Chaco Culture National Historic Park to preserve these areas. Since 1907, the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service have been partners in this area. From 1907 to 1949, the University owned the land within the Park boundaries. During this period, Dr. Frank Hibben excavated in Chaco Canyon and remained interested in the area throughout his long career. The University built a large collection of artifacts that it retains today. In 1949, the University deeded the land to the Federal Government, and since that time, the University and the Park Service have continued a partnership through a series of memoranda of understanding. Since 1985, the NPS Chaco collections have been housed at University of New Mexico's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. As both the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service collections have begun to grow, a new home for them is needed. To this end, Dr Hibben began planning a new research and curation facility at the University of New Mexico. He asked the Park Service to partner with him on this project, and today, construction of the Hibben center, a modern, professional facility to house the University of New Mexico's collections as well as the Park Service collections is a reality. Dr. Hibben recently passed away, and left the University of New Mexico the funds to assist with this project. The partnership between the Park Service and the University will mean that the Hibben center will hold a world-class collection and will facilitate and encourage the study of these important Southwestern collections. This bill will provide authorization to pay for the Federal share of the improvement costs to the Hibben Center. This bill is long overdue, and will honor both the legacy of Dr. Hibben and the Chaco Culture. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to help construct and occupy part of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico. This bill will help the University of New Mexico finish a state of the art museum facility to store, and display the National Park Service's Chaco Collection. Let me give you a bit of background. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt founded the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park in Northwestern New Mexico. The Monument was created to preserve the extensive prehistoric pueblo ruins in Chaco Canyon. The height of the Chaco culture began in the mid 800's and lasted over 300 years. People built dozens of complex multi-storied masonry buildings containing hundreds of rooms. These complexes were connected to communities by a network of prehistoric roads. I helped to establish the Chaco Culture National Historic Park to preserve these areas. Since 1907, the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service have been partners in this area. From 1907 to 1949, the University owned the land within the Park boundaries. During this period, Dr. Frank Hibben excavated in Chaco Canyon and remained interested in the area throughout his long career. The University built a large collection of artifacts that it retains today. In 1949, the University deeded the land to the Federal Government, and since that time, the University and the Park Service have continued a partnership through a series of memoranda of understanding. Since 1985, the NPS Chaco collections have been housed at University of New Mexico's Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. As both the University of New Mexico and the National Park Service collections have begun to grow, a new home for them is needed. To this end, Dr Hibben began planning a new research and curation facility at the University of New Mexico. He asked the Park Service to partner with him on this project, and today, construction of the Hibben center, a modern, professional facility to house the University of New Mexico's collections as well as the Park Service collections is a reality. Dr. Hibben recently passed away, and left the University of New Mexico the funds to assist with this project. The partnership between the Park Service and the University will mean that the Hibben center will hold a world-class collection and will facilitate and encourage the study of these important Southwestern collections. This bill will provide authorization to pay for the Federal share of the improvement costs to the Hibben Center. This bill is long overdue, and will honor both the legacy of Dr. Hibben and the Chaco Culture. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is very late to be talking about this, but better late than never. So we will get something, rather than nothing. Perhaps people are wondering what we are doing. If you think back the last 8 or 9 months, a vote will occur in the Senate, only in the Senate; a vote is going to occur, and someone stands up and makes a point of order to honor the Budget Act. When you first do one of these, it is something big. I remember making one and you wonder what is going to happen. The staff told you how to do each little thing, and when it came time to vote, you wondered if you really did it. But it is a very heavily used situation in the Senate. Members call up an amendment. It costs a lot of money either in program authority or outlays. The money is not found in the budget resolution that should have already been passed. Members get up and say: I am asking that that amendment be deemed invalid because it violates the Budget Act. Another Senator says: I move we waive this budget point of order under the Budget Act. Then Members state which part or provision to be waived. What happens in that situation, from that point forward? If you call up that amendment, you need 60 votes. Many Americans, especially academicians, are wondering what happened to the Senate: Have we stopped being a body where the majority prevailed? Don't we have majority rules anymore? The Budget Act provides an opportunity within its language--and it is only a 25-year-old statute--that if you violate the Budget Act by introducing and calling up an amendment or a bill, you can ask that it be deemed null and void, and the other side says: I want to try a waiver. How effective has this been? We put this together with the first President Bush a number of years ago. We did not know it would be so effective. Let's see how effective it has been. Fifteen Budget Act points of order that would have reverted now to simple majority votes, in a budget point of order, have been raised 65 times. Republicans raised 47, Democrats raised 18. Only eight times did these points of order get waived by having 60 votes or more. When this rule for 60 votes first came about, we were talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Someone said: How in the world are you going to enforce it? So if you read the constitutional amendments--and the American people thought they absolutely prevailed--it said the only way you could violate that was by 60 votes in the Senate. That was borrowed, not knowing how well either of them would work, the one that didn't happen or this one, but here it worked. What happened? To those who are listening to this strange talk, that side of the aisle, the Democrats in the Senate, had a responsibility many months ago to pass a budget resolution. We have passed a budget resolution every year, sooner or later, since we have had a Budget Act. You come down to the floor and you give to the Senate an opportunity to vote on the big issues that will be part of a budget, saying how much will be spent and included within it or the entitlement programs, and obviously if there are big increases, you show them. Then you adopt that budget resolution. That is the instrument around here for fiscal responsibility. Some people do not think it is strong enough; others think it is too complicated; others think it is too porous. But nobody denies if you do not have it around, the void will be worse than having it. So months went by, and we did not get a budget resolution because the Democratic side, under their leadership, did not produce one we could pass, Then we started to talk, the chairman and I, about maybe we ought to save a piece of this. This is the piece we decided to try to save. I hope all the Senators understand that, of the issues to be voted on, the most significant opportunity to save taxpayers' money for the next year is this little resolution. Let me repeat that. If anybody wants to go home and say, ``I really watched out for your taxes, but I voted against this particular resolution,'' you can count on this Senator--and I am sure the Chairman will stand up and say count on him--to say you voted ``no'' on the most important opportunity to save expenditures of this whole year. Somebody will come up with an entitlement program we have all been waiting for and we do not have it because it is too expensive, and we will be stirring around saying, What do we do? We are going to lose this one. We would not lose this one, if this was the law because we would start telling everybody it violates the budget. Then pretty soon when we finish debate, that 60 votes would come into effect. It will not be in order unless this little resolution is adopted by the Senate. It is very short. It is only in the Senate. You don't have to take it to the House because the budget resolution is a resolution, and this part of the budget does not apply in the House. So we have to do it. We are doing it. Frankly, I hope whatever the arguments are made, we can straighten them out and vote for it. I told Senators what it said about entitlement spending programs. It also says if this is part of the way you do business, you have this resolution adopted and you want to cut taxes, if, in fact, your budget is not balanced, you have to put into your budget resources to make up what you are taking out by taxes. Some will not like that. But we get both together because if you want one, you have to take the other. That is the way we have done the law. That is how we have lived under it. My friend Senator Gramm, who had been an ardent apostle of this 60- vote margin and this approach, has his own version as to why he would like it not to happen for a while. He will offer his own amendment and we will debate again. I hope he will not win unless, after we discuss it with him, it essentially is about the same resolution we talked about here, and it will take up expenditures and not taxes. I understand he has a very legitimate concern. But I tell you, so do I. I have a big concern. We had 4 years of balanced budgets and that was great. The American people liked that, and the markets in America liked that, and the foreign investors liked that, and we had very low interest rates, which were very good for Americans. I do not intend to carry on a debate, unless somebody cares to, as to who caused it. Many factors caused it. But we are now back into an unbalanced situation. If we had had these provisions in when we had a surplus and we would not vote for new expenditures, or to cut taxes unless we had paid for them, or unless they were in the budget resolution, then why wouldn't we have it now when we have this huge deficit? Unless we are providing for something absolutely important--such as war or the continuation of a recession that lasted a long time--in those cases, obviously the Senate would say the 60 votes are not so hard to make; let's vote and get it done so we can spend the extra money. We know of no better way to maintain our system--which should have been 51 votes, majority vote--no way of putting it in a mode where it can take care of excessive spending by corralling excessive spending and the extra tax cuts with a resolution that says we choose, ourselves, to restrain spending by enacting a law, in effect, that restrains us. It puts a little collar around us and tightens us. I have some additional remarks that go into a little more history, but I have a hunch we will talk more at some point. When I first started talking about this, I went to talk to Senators on that side of the aisle. I note the presence of one of the Senators, who asked me then: If you do this, please put me on. We did add the Senator as we said we would. I assume the Senator still agrees we ought to have the 60-vote majority requirement?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he is going to join us.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to stop in a minute and let him speak. But I believe we need 60 votes at some point on this resolution. I hope Senators will understand we have drawn it in the fairest way possible. If somebody thinks we should only apply it to the entitlements, then I am afraid half the Senate will vote against it because they would say: ``It started with both; it is only for 1 year; let's see how it works.'' Even in better times, I think we ought to have it on the books rather than have nothing. I will be back to talk to Senators again about it, once Senator Gramm has come to the floor. Maybe he can find some amendments that will make his concerns disappear, in which event this Senator will be helping him. Parliamentary inquiry: Is there any parliamentary order with reference to when we might vote on this?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.