Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator to yield for 30 seconds.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Judd Gregg be shown as an original cosponsor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Biden and Senator Lugar in sponsoring the Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002. Only a few months ago, I introduced the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 with these same Senators and many others as co-sponsors. It's being called the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill. I am pleased to learn that most provisions of that Act are being incorporated in the Conference on the Armed Services bill. The current bill and the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill are highly complementary. The first bill focused entirely on the contributions that the Department of Energy should be authorized to make to minimize risks of nuclear and radiological risks to our citizens. The current bill focuses on the contributions that the Department of State should make in that same arena. And in both cases, there is careful recognition of the importance of a tight partnership between those two Departments in accomplishing this vital mission. I'm particularly pleased with this bill's focus on assisting in the creation of a number of international repositories that can be used to store radioactive sources safely, while ensuring that they don't become ``orphaned'' sources that might fuel a terrorist's dirty bomb. Other provisions to assist the IAEA in promoting source inventory and recovery are also critical. One important application of this new bill must be to help the Russian Federation address the large number of Radio-isotope Thermal Generators that rely on large quantities of radioactive material to power many remote installations, especially lighthouses. These large radioactive sources, in isolated locations, are very vulnerable to compromise. With this bill, we can assist other nations, like Norway, in shifting the power for these lighthouses away from radioactive materials to other means of power. Another important aspect of the bill involves the authorization for the State Department to help other nations in developing their own First Responder program for response to dirty bomb or nuclear threats. In this country, we now have a First Responder program that grows stronger each year, thanks to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici bill that created the effort. Now we need to share the lessons we have been learning with others. This new bill is another important contribution to our nation's efforts to ensure that terrorists will never threaten the United States or other nations with radiological or nuclear weapons.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senator Biden and Senator Lugar in sponsoring the Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2002. Only a few months ago, I introduced the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 with these same Senators and many others as co-sponsors. It's being called the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill. I am pleased to learn that most provisions of that Act are being incorporated in the Conference on the Armed Services bill. The current bill and the Domenici-Biden-Lugar bill are highly complementary. The first bill focused entirely on the contributions that the Department of Energy should be authorized to make to minimize risks of nuclear and radiological risks to our citizens. The current bill focuses on the contributions that the Department of State should make in that same arena. And in both cases, there is careful recognition of the importance of a tight partnership between those two Departments in accomplishing this vital mission. I'm particularly pleased with this bill's focus on assisting in the creation of a number of international repositories that can be used to store radioactive sources safely, while ensuring that they don't become ``orphaned'' sources that might fuel a terrorist's dirty bomb. Other provisions to assist the IAEA in promoting source inventory and recovery are also critical. One important application of this new bill must be to help the Russian Federation address the large number of Radio-isotope Thermal Generators that rely on large quantities of radioactive material to power many remote installations, especially lighthouses. These large radioactive sources, in isolated locations, are very vulnerable to compromise. With this bill, we can assist other nations, like Norway, in shifting the power for these lighthouses away from radioactive materials to other means of power. Another important aspect of the bill involves the authorization for the State Department to help other nations in developing their own First Responder program for response to dirty bomb or nuclear threats. In this country, we now have a First Responder program that grows stronger each year, thanks to the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici bill that created the effort. Now we need to share the lessons we have been learning with others. This new bill is another important contribution to our nation's efforts to ensure that terrorists will never threaten the United States or other nations with radiological or nuclear weapons.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I honor the accomplishments of Principal Joseph Torrez of Tucumcari, NM, who is in the Nation's capital today to be recognized as the 2002 New Mexico National Distinguished Principal of the Year. He was one of 63 principals from across the country who will be honored by the United States Department of Education and the National Association of Elementary School Principals. Joseph is a product of the New Mexico higher education system, having received both his undergraduate degree and Master's degree from New Mexico Highlands University. Since completing his master's degree, he has dedicated his life to educating New Mexico's children. As a language arts teacher at Taos High School, Thoreau High School and Memorial Middle School in Las Vegas, NM, he has touched the hearts and minds of his students, while generating interest and enthusiasm in learning. Three years ago Joseph agreed to move from the classroom to the principal's office. In this role he has shown leadership skills that have earned him the respect of parents and teachers alike. One of his many accomplishments is the development of a program that targets at-risk kids by providing them with after-school activities. These include recreation, assistance with school work, and instruction on ways to become involved as volunteers in the community. This program is not limited simply to the children in these families, however. He has used money from a state grant to assist parents of his students obtain the skills needed to succeed in the workforce. Joseph's contributions to the community are not limited simply to his work in the Tucumcari schools. He has also encouraged his students to aid the local homeless shelter, collect food, and visit senior citizens. I commend Joseph for his hard work and dedication to help students, their parents and the community of Tucumcari. Joseph has set the bar for excellence through his exemplary efforts. He has used creative and innovative means to improve the lives of his students and beyond, through reaching out to the community. I am proud to honor Principal Joseph Torrez, our 2002 New Mexico National Distinguished Principal. On behalf of the Senate and New Mexico, I thank this fellow New Mexican for making a difference in our children's lives.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week. This week of wildlife education and activities marks the 99th birthday of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Following in the footsteps of one of our first conservationist Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1903 instituted the National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida, the National Wildlife Refuge System attentively monitors and preserves wildlife habitats on 538 National Wildlife Refugees spanning 94 million acres. The National Wildlife Refuge System plays a unique and critical role in ensuring Americans a safe, clean, and natural ecosystem where both wildlife and people benefit from a healthy environment. The National Wildlife Refuge System protects a wide range of wildlife and landscapes throughout the country. In particular, the refuges in the Southwest are necessary to secure the well-being and survival of an assortment of migratory birds, including the bald eagle, who make the Southwest their home during the fall and spring months. The National Wildlife Refuge System concentrates not only on the hands-on aspect of environmental protection but, focuses on the importance of science in determining the future and well-being of wildlife. Specifically, they direct their scientific endeavors towards the accelerating rate of extinction of species and the associated loss of biological diversity coupled with habitat alteration and destruction. Their efforts towards the preservation of wildlife are in conjunction with and for the well- being of Americans and their ability to enjoy a peaceful, natural, and unspoiled national refuge. The National Wildlife Refuge contributes greatly to ensuring many of New Mexico's natural landmark treasures such as Bitter Lake, Bosque del Apache, Grulla, Las Vegas, Maxwell, San Andres, and Sevilleta. The National Wildlife Refuge has been devoted to the restoration of Sevilleta, making native animals such as deer, elk, coyotes, mountain lions, and various birds and reptiles more abundant and visible. In particular, and of great interest to me, is the Long-Term Ecological Research Project the National Wildlife Refuge System they have launched. Such programs are key to the revitalization of not just Sevilletta, but to all of New Mexico's varying ecosystems. Their project is in line with the Sevilleta National Wild Refuge program and the Rio Grande Bosque Initiative that was implemented in 1991. As part of my concern for New Mexico's wildlife, I included a provision in this year's Interior Appropriations bill providing $1.25 million for the Fish and Wildlife program to design a new research complex for Sevilleta NWR. This facility will support numerous university and Federal agency research programs. The National Wildlife Refuge System consistently helps prevent and regulate environmental disasters through their highly cultivated set of management tools that includes farming, prescribed burning, exotic plant control, moist soil management, and water level manipulation. Without the perseverance of such organizations as the National Wildlife Refuge System, we would not be able to successfully tackle the many environmental obstacles that stand in the way of a healthy and well managed ecosystem. I wish the National Wildlife Refuge System a great week of learning, exploration, and fun and a continued success in their wildlife and environmental work. Although I cannot be in my beloved home of New Mexico for this noble event, I congratulate this organization for their almost one hundred years of conservation and public works.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before I proceed, I would like to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. When he writes his name uses the title ``Senator'' followed by ``M.D.'' I think you will always be a doctor even if you are not always a Senator. I am happy to know you in both capacities--as a member of the medical profession--and among our ranks as senators. We in the Senate are very fortunate that a few years ago at the peak of your profession you decided to come here, and your people there in Tennessee sent you. I have been here 30 years--roughly five times, I think, that you have been here. I have gotten to know you very well. I consider you among one of my very best friends--not only here but in the world. I am very proud of what you had to say here tonight. I am not going to speak about the technical matters. If anybody wants proof about the quantity and the tremendous damage that the weapons which Saddam probably possesses can cause humankind, they can read Senator Bill Frist's statement just ahead of mine. I have difficulty when speaking on a subject such as this to disengage from being a full-blooded American and try to see the issue from a global perspective. It is very hard for me to see the world and see this issue in any way other than from the eyes of an American who grew up here and has lived here for the years I have been on this Earth. I am prejudiced by my great confidence in America being the right country to see that the Middle East stops being a tinderbox. I think we are the right country, and probably the only country that can keep Saddam Hussein from using those weapons of mass destruction. We are the only country that will see to it that he brings minimal damage to this world. I have concluded, after much study, that we must give our President this authority--not because he is going to use it, but quite to the contrary: to raise hopes he won't have to use it. I am voting aye on giving the President this authority because I am convinced that the one and only way to prevent Saddam Hussein from doing tremendous damage to humankind and to the Earth is to say to our President, You have the full strength of the American military to keep him from doing anything of great harm. That sounds like a terribly simple proposition, but I don't think it is. I think if one wanted to write a 30- or 40-page speech about what I just said, one could devote 5 pages just to the history of the United States. They could about how our country started and what our first wars were all about. They could talk about the First World War and the horror of chemical weapons used in that conflict. Do you know I had an uncle in the First World War in 1919? I wondered when I was growing up how come an aunt of mine used to get a little check in the mail--$19.80, or something. Finally, I said to my mother: What does my auntie do with that money? She said: She gets it for all of the life of her husband--she then told me in Italian--because your uncle, mio zio, was gassed by the Kaiser in the First World War with mustard gas. You see, how many years ago was that?--80 or 90?

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much. So one could write at length about the parallels in our country's history and how it relates to today. Then follow every war we have been in, and then ask, What country is the most just throughout its history? Would there be any question? It would be the United States. Yet, we have people saying we shouldn't get involved in this, as if we are some big bamboozling country wrought on doing damage. History will tell us and tell the world that that is not why America would get involved in this situation. Isn't that right? Historically, the United States has only used military force when we can do some good. We stand for some principle or concept that we really think is tremendous--in this case, democracy versus dictatorship, democracy and freedom versus the kind of despicable character about whom our President has been speaking to us for a long time. The world is seeing a new kind of war that started with the destruction of our towers and our Pentagon. This war has its origins right there in that Middle East where, if action is not taken, humankind is going to have some big problems. And I concluded that if we want to make sure our military personnel are safe, we would have to get them out of the Middle East, bring them all home. But guess what? If we did that there would be a war in the Middle East without question. It would not take Saddam Hussein very long before he would attack Israel. And if he wasn't successful, who else might join to help him? Perhaps two or three other nations who would be willing to take up arms against Israel. So I believe there is a real reason for us to work through the United Nations to try to bring peace to that area. So I do not intend to go into all the details about the threat Iraq poses, rather, I just want to talk about the conclusions I tried to draw about dealing with that threat. One that I just talked to Senator Frist about, is that we are probably as good a nation as any in the world to decide that action needs to be taken. I have also concluded that to be successful, we had better give our President the authority he needs to act. In this way can better negotiate so as to maintain the peace. I guess I am going to stop for a minute and ask, is something going on I should know about? I have 20 minutes to speak. If people are not waiting, I am going to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think we are 32 minutes away from someone on that side being recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I am delighted to have found you on the floor just before my remarks. As always, you eloquently in describing what terrible things this man can wrought on this world and how we need to be careful. If we are going to get involved, we ought to be prepared. And what I added tonight, is that if we are going to do anything about it, we have to give our President the authority he needs. And he may well need our Army, our military to do it. So, Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lieberman-Warner- Bayh-McCain amendment because I am convinced that without clear authority to act decisively, it is not possible for the President of the United States to effectively confront the growing threat in Iraq. As I just said in talking with my friend from Tennessee, I do not think it is going to be very effective for us to say: Mr. President, stay involved, go to the U.N., talk to everybody about the despicable character who is now the head of Iraq. I don't think that is going to do anything if the President is not backed up with real authority to take military action. I don't want our President to engage in an effort that, from the onset, will not allow him to achieve intervention by the U.N. with a resolution of consequence. What I want for the American people is for our President to be able to effectively work with the U.N. to the maximum extent, as this resolution allows. This resolution makes certain that if the United States is involved, our President, after trying negotiations--and the words are voluminous on how hard he must try to resolve this matter peacefully and to keep Congress informed, he must give us reports--that he has the strength of the U.S. military if that does not work. And, frankly, I repeat, I think that is more apt to preserve peace than if we do not give the President the power. I am concerned that the world is already set up for a major war in the Middle East. And the only way to prevent it is to give our President the authority he needs to negotiate effectively, to go to the U.N., to go to our friends, to use diplomacy, but to be ready to say: The people of the United States, through our Congress, gave me authority to do more than that. They gave me authority to intervene and use the full power of the United States.

Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe while they are gone, and the only one here is Senator Byrd, I could ask unanimous consent that I have an additional hour. I am just joking, so you don't have to object. In any event, it is clear to me that in the absence of this authority, Saddam Hussein will continue to assume that America's warnings are not serious. He will continue with all manner of delay and defiance, and he will continue to buy time for further development of weapons of mass destruction. And that is what we are talking about. Mr. President, while I will associate myself with the technical remarks of my friend, the doctor from Tennessee, I know a little bit about nuclear weapons. It is my subcommittee on appropriations that funds them, and has for the last 6\1/2\ years. So I know a little bit about that. But I also remember when we went and talked to groups about weapons of mass destruction, and we described gas and biological weapons of mass destruction by holding up a jar. It was not like this glass I hold in my hand, but what we actually used was a mayonnaise jar, the size jar that most people associate with a jar of mayonnaise that you would have in a refrigerator. And we held that up and said: If you know how to make real poisonous gas, and real biological killers, you can put them in a bottle this small. The chemistry needed to produce these poisons could be accomplished in a little room about the size of a kitchen. And the destruction that could be caused is beyond perception. So we will find that it is not as easy as to deter these weapons as were nuclear weapons for all the years we were standing head to head and toe to toe with the Soviet Union. We knew everything about their nuclear weapons; they knew everything about ours. But this batch of terrorists, who are bent on mass destruction, have us much more over a barrel than the Soviet Union did with nuclear weapons when we faced mutual assured destruction, sometimes called MAD, as the premise that would prevent war. So it is clear that weapons of mass destruction are going to continue, under the auspices and direction of the scientists who have been brought into Iraq, and be shipped around the world by Iraqi leaders, to put these terrible kinds of things in the hands of others, who are the ``minutemen'' of Saddam around the world. So I say again, by enacting the resolution that is before us, we emphasize our resolve to act in the event that Saddam impedes the work of U.N. weapons inspections. We will emphasize by this our resolve to act. So let's be clear. Saddam Hussein only understands the language of force. This resolution provides unambiguous authority for the President to use force. It is this authority, and Congress's support, that gives us the best hope of avoiding confrontation in pursuit of Iraq's disarmament. So it is the expectation of New Mexicans and all Americans that wherever their President considers sending U.S. troops to battle, that he does so in full consultation with the Congress and our allies in the war on terrorism. The American people also expect that the President will commit U.S. forces only after diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. And this resolution says that. This resolution underscores those concerns by imposing unambiguous responsibilities on our President. I am sure that resolution has been read to the American people and those watching us more than once. But let me just state a couple of them. Prior to using force or within 48 hours after exercising the authority, the President is required to certify to Congress that diplomatic and other peaceful means cannot protect our national security against the threat posed by Iraq. Also, he must certify that such means are not likely to bring Iraq into compliance with all relevant U.N. resolutions. Second, only in the event that diplomatic efforts fail and Iraq continues to breach its international obligations and the inspectors are given every opportunity for unimpeded access, then our President can use the military. He doesn't have to come back to us under those circumstances. Believe me, Saddam Hussein and his military and his scientists will immediately understand what it means if we give our President the authority to use force. There is no longer the delay in communications. Iraq will know we are serious, and we can be more effective in our diplomacy. If it doesn't work, we leave it in the hands of our President. Some observers think this resolution gives the President too much authority. In fact, the resolution gives the President no more authority than he already has as Commander in Chief to provide for the national security for the United States. What the resolution does is to recognize the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. It says he is a weapon of mass destruction. It calls the President to exercise this authority as a last resort, and only in the event that all negotiations are fruitless, and with the added condition that he explain his actions to the Congress. I believe the best way to prevent the Middle East, in this moment of history, from exploding into a war is for us to recognize how important we are to achieving peace, how important it is that we ask our President to be our instrument of peace in this very troubled part of the world. Even a person as culpable and as lacking in human decency as Saddam Hussein will understand that our President, once given the proper authority, will take all necessary action to ensure the security of America and humankind against the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he is far less likely to unleash weapons of mass destruction when he knows that the American military, with the full support of Congress, is poised to stand in his way. We have just today approved the biggest Defense bill ever in the history of America. We have given the President most of what he asked for in that bill. I believe it could not be worse news for Saddam Hussein than to learn that the U.S. Congress has approved the money needed to bolster our military and then, to learn shortly thereafter, that it has approved a resolution giving our President the real authority he needs to use military force to disarm Iraq. I believe this is the best way to secure peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in recognition of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic violence continues to be one of the silent tragedies in our society. Because this topic can be uncomfortable to talk about, many people choose to ignore it hoping that it will just go away. This is an unfortunate and, ultimately, harmful response. Uncomfortable as it may be, we have to recognize that domestic violence occurs far too often and it will continue to occur if we, as a society, fail to take appropriate measures to stop it. We can't know how many occurrences of domestic abuse take place every year because so many of them go unreported. However, estimates range from just under a million to as many as 3 million cases each year. While this is a staggeringly high number, it represents only one stage in the cycle of abuse that will not end on its own. You see, the women who are abused in these relationships are not the only victims, in the vast majority of these cases, the woman is not the only one who is affected; the children in these families are also victimized. A man who physically abuses his partner is likely to physically abuse his children as well. But the abuse doesn't have to be physical for it to have a devastating and far-reaching impact. Simply witnessing this kind of abuse begins a cycle of violence that is often passed on from one generation to the next. We, as a society, have to do better to create an atmosphere in which abused women and children can escape from the abusive relationship. While we have not yet succeeded in addressing this scourge on our society, we have taken some important steps. Passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was an important step that has done much to address the problem. A number of other laws at both the Federal and State levels to prevent domestic abuse and punish those who abuse their domestic partners have been enacted over the years. There are steps being taken to combat domestic violence all over the country at the local levels as well. In my own State of New Mexico, the Dona Ana County Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Task Force has recently reconvened. This group, made up representatives from the law enforcement community, the criminal justice system, the religious community, and those in the social services, is charged with helping all victims of domestic violence and sexual violence. In Santa Fe, NM, the Rape Crisis Center will break ground later this month on a new facility. While I am saddened that we have such a need for this facility, I am pleased to have had a part in making the center a reality by securing $1 million in the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD appropriations bill. I believe that it will provide a safe haven for those who have no other way to escape the abuse they are living with. While these are all important components in the fight against domestic abuse, there is much that still has to be done. We have an obligation to shine a spotlight on this dark secret. Taking this month to focus on this issue represents an important step in the fight against those who would terrorize their families. It is my fervent hope that this step leads us to the day when no woman or child has to live in fear in their own home. I remain committed to doing all I can to seeing that hope become reality.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield, can I ask for the record that I follow Senator Kyl?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have 15 minutes, I believe.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to talk about the Iraqi situation for a small portion of my 15 minutes. The more I have been reading about this, the more I have been studying it, the more I come to an answer that I have to make as to whether I will give the President authority to use our military forces along with other countries so as to avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. I have to ask myself a question: How is he most apt to disarm? What is most apt to make him disarm? Talk? Resolutions? I think not. When we are finished, a huge majority of the Senate will say this is not necessarily a question of war or peace. This could be a question of whether an America armed for war, with the full knowledge on the part of Saddam Hussein that we are armed for war, and the President has the authority, might that bring about disarmament on the part of Saddam Hussein sooner than any other means that we know about thus far as we look at the Middle East and its various problems. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on the American economy.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it isn't often that a Senator from New Mexico and a Republican quotes an editorial by the Washington Post regarding economics and economic activity and America's economic future. This morning I caught an editorial in that newspaper which I have here behind me. It is from Saturday, October 5. It is styled ``Negative Al Gore.'' I didn't put it up here to be negative to Al Gore. I put it up here because the editors of this newspaper have come to the conclusion, and have come to it rather firmly, that the President of the United States, George Bush, is not responsible for the current state of the American economy, nor did he do anything to cause the recession--how mild it was, how deep it was, how long it has lasted. He didn't cause it. I would like to start first with a statement which I will print in the Record which has gotten a lot of notoriety since I issued it and put it in the Record some days ago. It is a statement by Joseph Stiglitz, chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. I don't think we can quote it enough, as those on the other side think they are going to convince the American people, who are already rather doubtful, that they are going to convince them that President George Bush is responsible for this slow economy. This is a man, Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, who speaks for the Democrats, if he speaks for either party. He worked for President Clinton. He answered the question: When did the downturn start? I quote: [T]he economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier [than that.] We ought to be able to carry one of these around for the next 4 or 5 weeks, just as our friend Senator Byrd carries the Constitution. Every time we hear a Democrat, wearing his partisan clothes, get up and say President Bush did this, we will refer him to one of the best economists that ever served America, served the previous President on his Council of Economic Advisors, and later on was a member of the Federal Reserve with the distinguished President we have there now, and he wrote this as a part of a dissertation with reference to the American economy. Along comes the Washington Post a few weeks later, Saturday, October 5. Let me just read the yellow print and you can all be looking at the rest of it: But President Bush's main economic policy--the large tax cut of last year--was not responsible for any of the current damage. Indeed, given the twin shocks of 9/11 and the post- Enron stock market decline, the short-term stimulus created by the tax cuts has turned out to be fortuitously well timed. You might recall, on a number of occasions, Senators who were putting forth the President's tax policy--I think the occupant of the Chair might have even supported that tax policy--would get up and say: It just might be the right time. We might be doing something right for a change, where we are getting a tax cut to come in just at the time that the American economy starts to stutter, starts to stammer around. And for once we might be on time, I said, in proposing it and getting the reconciliation instruction through here. I said, in addition, spending additional resources rather than tightening the budget would be in order also. Sure enough, the tax cuts were supplemented by an increase in expenditures. And, guess what. The Federal Reserve Chairman lowered the interest rates, and we had the threefold attack which normally works in terms of the American economy. We seldom do it right and punctual enough, but we did. So the American economy is stuttering for some other reason. It may very well be that we had such an extensive balloon-type economy when the stock market was driving almost everything to outlandish prices coming on to the market that maybe when those start to fall, it takes a little bit longer for things to catch on and push that back up the ladder because so much is falling down on us. Some say $11 trillion is the amount-- trillion--of diminution in value. I put ``value'' in quotes as I say it because I am not sure what that value meant. I am not sure that was value like you had dollar bills, but I am not sure what it was. People are having difficulty saying how much of that was nothing more than the hot air of the stock market. I don't know the answer to that. I haven't studied that. I would like very much to say to the editors of the Washington Post, I have some additional comments on the editorial that they have written. Obviously, I have taken parts of it and put it in my statement, obviously giving the Washington Post credit wherever I thought it was right, that that language was consistent with what I am talking about. The lead editorial on Saturday, titled ``Negative Al Gore,'' seriously questions the Senate leader's attack on President Bush. Let me highlight once more a couple of items: But President Bush's main economic policy--the large tax cut of last year--was not responsible for any of the current damage. That is not the Senate Republican Policy Committee saying that. That is the Washington Post. Another quote: Given the twin shocks-- I have read that to you. It ends with: . . . fortuitously well timed. That is again not mine, not the Republican Senatorial Committee. That is the Washington Post's summary of how their editors see things in terms of the stock market and other things related to the American economy. Another quote: But to blame the weak American economy on Mr. Bush is nonsense. That is the editorial of the Washington Post I am showing you here. Anyone who doesn't want to listen can read this and see what the Washington Post says. Let me proceed. I think the writers of the editorial have it just about right. The economic blame and the blame game that Leader Daschle and former Vice President Gore have launched is, for certain, wrong. There is little truth to it, and there is little economic veracity attendant. It is not accepted as being realistic by those in the highest echelons of economic terms and assessments in America. From the long-term economic history, we know a speculative boom, once started, cannot end without some disruption. I believe the American public understands this, and understands that to blame the current weak economy on President George Bush is nonsense. Having said that, I know we are engaged today, and for the next few days, in a serious discussion. Some would like to put the economy back front and center, and some think that would not be right. I believe we should proceed with dispatch to give the President the authority, if necessary, to see to it Saddam Hussein does not use weapons of mass destruction, and to use force, if he has to do that. I will speak in more detail and in more depth on that subject later on. I think we are capable of discussing two major issues at the same time and getting them both right. We surely can discuss this issue the writers in the Washington Post editorial bring to our attention. I, for one, am not fearful of standing up and discussing that issue with anybody, any color of politics, any party that wants to talk about President Bush and the relevancy of his actions to the current status of the American economy. I believe almost everything that was done--the lowering of the interest rates, extra expenditures that were put on rather than keeping the strings tightened around the budget and, obviously, a tax cut that came in just as the recession started to occur--I think we can discuss those and we can ask anyone around, what would you have done? They would come up with three of them, or two out of the three. When a President gets that done and he is starting his first term, and he has one body that is not of his party, it seems he deserves some very significant accolades. It is not every President who would have gotten that done. I believe we all looked for the right way to do it and the right things to do--what we did in urging a tax cut, urging the Fed to lower interest rates, and making the strings a little bit looser instead of tighter so we can spend more money. Some other reason is causing the slowdown, but it is not President Bush and his policies. It is not what the Senate voted in when we were in the majority and carrying it out under the majority of the Democrats, who have the body by one vote. We must remember one of our Members became an Independent and now votes with the other side. Whoever would like to discuss the American economy, I am willing. I have a lot of other Senators who are willing. We will be here whenever you care to speak about it, and we might be here even when you don't care about speaking about it. We may speak to it ourselves.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of 4-H in America. For 100 years in our great Nation, and since 1911 in New Mexico, 4-H has molded generations of involved citizens and leaders, providing an enduring contribution to the development of America's youth. This organization, rooted in hands on learning, grew from the interest of seven boys from Don a Ana County in each planting a pound of seed corn they acquired from the New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, now New Mexico State University. This 1911 experiment was the first of a growing number of activities of this kind in rural communities around the territory that led to the establishment of precursor 4-H clubs in schools, led by teachers. Local merchants, bankers and farmers began the organization's long history of community support by donating prize money, goods and expertise to the young peoples' activities. The 1912 State fair saw the first ever competition between 4-H club members, who earned premiums for prize-winning corn, kafir corn, milo, peanuts, bread and sewing. Today, New Mexico 4-H boasts more than 50,000 members, part of the 6.4 million youth involved globally in what is the world's largest youth organization. Though 4-H maintains its rural and agricultural roots, its leadership development activities have shown even broader influence as the organization has adapted to changing times. I am proud of the unique and remarkable way New Mexico's 4-H clubs teach responsibility, decision-making, communication skills and citizenship, all key ingredients to purposeful lives and strong communities. Through hands- on experience, 4-Hers learn what it takes to follow a project through to completion, keep records, and make presentations to others about their work. Whether it is baking, showing or judging livestock at the fair, sewing or public speaking, club members are challenged to set and achieve goals, find creative solutions to problems, overcome obstacles along the way, and demonstrate their progress to others. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the parents and community leaders of 4-H. Those who donate time, expertise and assistance to 4-H are often alumni who appreciate the lessons they learned in their clubs, and this has created the legacy of involvement that makes the organization so strong after 100 years. The mentorship and wealth of experience these leaders provide produce the tangible results we see in exhibits at the fair and community projects. However, they also sow the seeds of confident leadership and citizenship that may not reach full bloom until later in a member's life. I am also extremely proud to continue supporting 4-H's Share/Care afterschool program and the Rio Arriba County Clover Club, which have proven invaluable in giving young people the chance to get involved in fun, educational activities instead of drugs. The long, proud record of 4-H in New Mexico, the United States, and around the world is testimony to the enduring viability of this organization and its central values, firmly rooted in our hard-working rural and agricultural communities. I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the valuable contribution of 4-H's ``head, heart, health and hands,'' to New Mexico's youth and the very fabric of our society. It is a great pleasure to celebrate the national centennial of 4-H, and I congratulate this organization on beginning another century of ``making the best better.''

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought the agreement was that we got our time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I bring regards from my wife Nancy to both you and Dot. She asked me today--it was written on my calendar--if I would say that for her, and I do. I do not think all Senators know that 30 years ago, a class of new Senators numbering nine arrived in the Senate. I was one of those nine, Senator Sam Nunn, Senator Bennett Johnston, Senator Biden, myself, and our wonderful Jesse Helms. That group saw Senator Helms as being the father of all of us. We thought we were youngsters, and then we met Jesse, and we said: We do have some wisdom and some experience with us. It has been a sheer joy to serve with him. The whole group that came together has left of their own accord, and that is good. It speaks well of them; it speaks mightily of the class and the capacity they had. Jesse, as I saw you get sick and then get well, I was truly hopeful that whatever the good Lord had in store for you, you would leave here on your own, saying goodbye to the Senate with your own capacity, and that nothing would be the cause of taking you from us. That is why it is a good day, because you have lived through it all, and you have been, from what outsiders know, the absolute opposite of what people say you are. They judge you by your record, and if they do not like the record, they have things to say that are totally without the character of Jesse Helms. My friend who just spoke clearly put it right when it comes to kindness. Senator Helms truly believes that everybody, no matter how little, how poor, how vintaged, what seat they occupy, deserves a kindness from him. He does not walk by anyone to whom he does not say hello. If he knows they have been sick, he will stop and talk with them and ask them about their relatives. In a way, for some of us, we are amazed at how he can do that. For that, I say I am glad I shared that experience with Senator Helms. What really made me come down here today, I say to Senator Helms, is that he has been very decent and nice to me. I think now, looking back on occasions on the floor when I had a budget to handle that was particularly difficult or I had to make a speech that was particularly difficult--he did not sit very far from me--almost invariably, Senator Helms would call me to his desk and congratulate me. He even told me how I was changing as a Senator: You are getting better; you are getting to be as good as there is; you are responding; that was a great speech. I do not know how many of those remarks Senator Helms passed on to me. I believed it, so it helped me. I do not know if it was true, but it was true as he saw it, and that was enough for me to leave with just a little more hop in my step because somebody I really wanted to note what I was doing apparently had. For that, I wish to tell Senator Helms, that means an awful lot to a Senator, especially as he is getting started. I was thrilled with it, even in the last 4 or 5 years when he continued to do that. I thank him for that. The Senate will miss this man. The truth is, there are many people from the outside who criticize Jesse Helms, but nobody questions whether he believes what he says. Nobody questions that he says what he believes. I do not think one can have either a better friend, a better servant, or a better patriot than one who knows what he believes and believes what he knows. That is what our friend is. That is the essence of him. One does not have to second-guess Senator Helms. For that class of Senators of 30 years ago, there are now three of us left. When Senator Helms leaves, there will be two. I will be running, and so will Senator Biden. If we come back, the marvelous class will be getting smaller, and Senator Helms will have left us this year. I am sorry to see him leave. I thank him very much.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. If you think through the Craig-Domenici amendment, which was going to permit us to have a vote in reference to the thinning of forest accumulations in certain parts of the West to avoid fire, here is the logic: We won't let you vote. But do you know why they won't let us vote?

Mr. DOMENICI. Two reasons: One, some of their Senators would have to vote for it because it is such a good amendment; they know some of them are yearning to vote for it so they get to vote. Secondly, if it got enough votes, they would have to filibuster it--``they'' being the other side of the aisle--because it would then be an amendment that the environmentalists who don't support it would insist that their Members on that side vote against. It is the strangest kind of filibuster you ever saw. It is a filibuster so as to never let an amendment pass so that the majority won't have to vote on it. And if it were to pass, they would have to filibuster it. So they are clean and blaming us for the filibuster.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield whatever time he has remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to merely comment on the issue raised by my good friend from Missouri. I think the people in the West understand we are not being dealt with fairly. The Western States have this large accumulation of debris and forests are burning down. Our amendment would permit some help to those States where we see these enormous accumulations going up in flames. We could take that out.