Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Happy New Fiscal Year. Mr. President, the new fiscal year began at midnight last night and none of the 13 regular appropriation bills has been enacted. Over the last decade, this has happened only two other times--in 1996 and last year. Now, one could make a good argument that the failure to complete any of the regular appropriations bills last year was completely understandable given the events of last September. But I think the failure this year to complete any appropriations bills before the beginning of this fiscal year today lies squarely at the foot of the Congress for not adopting a congressional budget resolution last spring. There is a reason why we have a congressional budget process! And I think if ever we needed an example of why we must not let this process atrophy and die on the vine, this year is a good example of why we need this process. For the first time in the 27-year history of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the U.S. Senate did not consider and did not adopt its own budget plan for this year. To be completely accurate, we do have in place a congressional budget resolution but it is the one that I helped to have enacted in the spring of 2001. And that Fiscal Year 2002 budget resolution remains in effect until replaced with a new one, but I think we all know that the economic downturn that became clear after that resolution was adopted and the attacks of last September have made many of the numbers in that resolution outdated for guiding fiscal policy here in the Congress. Further, let us remember that many of the Budget Enforcement Act provisions that were enacted in 1990 and extended in the negotiated 1997 Balanced Budget agreement, expired at midnight last night. I am talking about no appropriation spending caps for this year or beyond. This will be the first time since 1987 that we have not had these spending caps to help guide our budgeting and appropriation process. I am talking bout no 60-vote points of order for violation of some of the major points of order in the Budget Act. As I said, until replaced the FY 2002 Budget Resolution with its 10 year numbers is still the enforceable resolution in the Senate even if the numbers in it are outdated. But as of today we can not even enforce that resolution with our normal 60-vote points of order. We do not have our normal 60-vote point of order for pay-as-you-go violations. My colleagues will remember that the Senate has operated since the 1990's with this deficit-neutral requirement and they will also know that it was one of our most effective tools in our quest for balanced budgets. In the absence of this pay-as-you-go enforcement provision today, any major tax or entitlement spending program could be considered without addressing the fiscal impact that legislation will have on surpluses or deficits in the future. Just for the record, in this 107th Congress alone, budgetary points of order have been raised in the Senate over 65 times. And on only 8 occasions did the matter receive sufficient votes--that is 60 or more-- to waive the point of order. I have helped draft with the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Leaders Daschle and Lott, and with the support of President Bush, a simple Senate resolution to extend these pay-go and other enforcement provisions that expired at midnight last night. We should adopt this resolution without delay; it is the least we can do to keep some hope alive that the budget process will survive the set backs this last year. I think, as Chairman Greenspan--maybe I should say Sir Chairman Greenspan in recognition of his knighting last week--that we need to do at least this small resolution to send a signal to the markets and the public that fiscal discipline has not been totally abandoned. Again, today is the first day of a new year. October 1 is the first day of the new year under our budgets and it has been so for quite some time. It used to be July 1. Everybody thought it was too soon, so they moved it to October so there would be plenty of time. So it is the first day, but we don't have a budget resolution. Today, we start a budget and start spending money--if we ever get around to it--under a budget that doesn't exist. I think it is time we do that. Seeing the majority leader on the floor, I want to ask in a forthright way--because I know he is aware of this--when does he think we might be able to take up the resolution I am going to introduce with the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the so-called pay-go resolution? I ask the leader, is that on his agenda somewhere? I would be here to help him if there is anything I could do to move the time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. That means before we recess, is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. It only has to be passed by the Senate, and we will have extended the pay-go provisions.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, what is the order following the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I follow him for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to Senator Specter, I am sure you had some more to say and I apologize, but it seems like the harder I try to get time here the worse it works out for me.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I made a few remarks 3 or 4 days ago talking about where we are and what we are doing, and I would like to finish those remarks today, perhaps start on a discussion of the American economy. First, in less than 5 days the new fiscal year begins. That means if you are a businessman, no matter how small or how large, you would be closing down your books, you would be adding everything up, you would be doing a couple of additions and subtractions, and you would find out how well or how poorly you did--a very important event in the life of an ongoing business. The United States is similar except it is much bigger. Frankly, it does not keep its books nearly as well as the small businesspeople of America, who must keep them much better than we do because of the Internal Revenue Service if nothing else. We are not audited by anybody. We do ours in some strange ways. The truth is that the year ends October 1. I think both the occupant of the Chair and the Senator from New Mexico can remember when it was July. We found out that was too soon in the year. If you started a year in January, you started work, it was too quick to have everything done in July. So we had a completed year, since I have been a Senator, when we went to October. We had to fix that up. And now October was thought to be ample time to get our work done. Not a single appropriations bill has been sent to the President. The last time this situation occurred, excluding last year after the attacks, was in 1995 during the infamous Government shutdown. You remember that, the shutdown period. I come to the Senate because there has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for what. Frankly, I would like to suggest that the majority party and the majority leader bear the burden of running the Senate. They can run it with all the laments they can put forth and all the blame they can shed upon the situation, but the truth is, as difficult as it is, it is their job and the first and most important thing is that they are supposed to prepare and have a vote on a budget resolution. While it is not everything, to many things that transpire after it, it is a very big issue, a very big instrument. So we find ourselves, as I indicated, where we are 5 days from the end of the year. All of those appropriations bills that are coming along that have not been finished pick up October 1 as the starting date because the other ones that we put in run out. So if we do not do something by October 1, most parts of Government will shut down. We found that out in 1995 when there was a cleavage between the Congress and the President. The President would not sign some bills because he did not like certain items, and clearly he pinned the blame on Congress for sending those bills up to him in a manner that he would not sign and closed down the Government, one piece after another. So it was a job that we had to get done. I believe my friend--the new chairman of the Budget Committee who took over in the middle of a 2-year cycle because the Democrats got one additional Member to vote with them, so everything went to them--went their way. I believe the answer was it was just too hard to get a budget. The occupant of the chair knows how difficult it was. He sat there for days on end. But that wasn't anything new. Senators before him and Senators after him, if we still keep a budget, will sit there for hours on end trying to get it done. It should have been done. A budget resolution is an important issue upon which we should focus. It is important we in the Senate understand we did not get a budget resolution because some thought it was not necessary. They were wrong. Some thought we would get along without it, but they were wrong. The American people are the ones suffering because we can't get our work done. I don't believe there is any room to lay blame for that on this side of the aisle. It is that side of the aisle--the majority party of the Senate now, this particular month--that has to bear the blame. Back in May, the majority leader blamed the lack of a budget on an evenly divided membership in the Senate. Early this month, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee--who has a propensity, because he speaks well, to put his nose in legislative business as if he were one of us--said on the Sunday show, ``Face the Nation'': We couldn't do it because we need 60 votes and we couldn't get 60 votes. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A budget resolution needs 50 votes--not 60. The occupant of the chair, as a valued member of the Budget Committee, knows that. Every Senator knows that. There are many votes that are 60 votes because you did not get a budget resolution--because the law says you are punished in some instances. Some things can't get passed with a majority, even though we require a majority. That the budget laws say without the budget, you have to have 60 votes, but not to pass it. The budget should have been passed. We should have gone back to it on a number of occasions, and it should have been done. Finally, just last week the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, referring to an amendment that was voted on by the Senate on June 20, clearly implying it was the Senate budget, literally said here on the floor, and I quote: We got 59 votes for that proposal on a bipartisan basis. We needed a supermajority of 60. That is wrong. You needed 60 votes. Because you didn't have a budget which did not permit you to do what he was suggesting, we didn't get 60 votes. So that ought to be corrected. Everybody should know the fact we did not have a budget caused it; not that we were voting on a budget that needed 60 votes. I want to be very clear. We have not voted on a budget resolution in the Senate this year. This will be the first time the Budget Act in its life--which, incidentally, is not a very long life. It is only 27 years old. That means Senator Domenici could have been here for its entire life. I have been. I could have been on the committee for its entire life. I was. I could have been the chairman for \1/2\ of its time in existence. I was--maybe 2 years less than \1/2\. In any event, we split it when we were controlling the Senate. That is who deemed that. There has not been a budget resolution brought before the Senate to be debated on the floor this year. The chairman of the Budget Committee knows this, and he knows the majority leader knows this, and to even hint we would have considered a budget but didn't pass it is not so. We have now learned--and I hope they have learned--that if the Democrats are still in control next year, which I doubt--but if they are, we should have learned you had better bring it up, even if you are one or two votes short. And you had better spend 2 weeks debating and see what happens. At least you will have tried, and you might be surprised. Somebody around who would rather there not be a budget would say I will vote to report it out. I have been, as I indicated, on the Budget Committee since its beginning in the 94th Congress. I have been honored to serve on it. I am very embarrassed by what is happening to it because it is getting very close to becoming something we use as an instrument to require 60 votes for certain things we do and don't do. But as far as it being the policy determiner we expected, it is beginning to fall apart as we speak and as we vote. I know what a budget is. I think I know what we should have done. Just last week the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, referring to an amendment that was voted on in the Senate on June 20, clearly implying that it was a Senate budget, literally said here on the floor and I quote: ``. . . we got 59 votes for that proposal on a bipartisan basis. We needed a supermajority, which is 60.'' Mr. President, let me be as clear as I can possibly be--we have not voted on a budget resolution in the Senate this year. This will be the first time in the Budget Act's nearly 27 year history that the Senate has not adopted a budget blueprint. No budget resolution has ever been brought to the Senate floor to be debated and voted on this year. The Chairman of the Budget Committee knows this, the Majority Leader knows this, and to even hint that we have considered a budget, is an absolute insult to those of us that have worked to make the budget process a functioning part of the fiscal decisionmaking mechanism here in the Senate. I think I know what a budget is, and let me assure those who may care, it does not take 60 votes to adopt a budget in the Senate. Despite what the Majority Leader, the current Chairman, or the Democratic National Committee Chairman says. In fact, of those nearly 32 budget conference resolutions the Senate has adopted over the years, almost half, fourteen, were adopted with less than 60 votes. And last year, as Chairman of the Budget Committee, in an evenly divided Senate, I had considered and we adopted a budget resolution for FY 2002. It was tough but we worked hard and in that evenly divided Senate, the Senate passed its budget blueprint by a vote of 65-35. So let us be clear, it does not take 60 votes to adopt a budget. So what other excuse is given for not adopting a congressional budget this year? Unbelievable, the Chairman of the Budget Committee comes to the floor and says because the House of Representatives adopted a budget that used OMB assumptions or did not make 10 year estimates, that it was impossible for the Senate to adopt a budget. Mr. President, to blame somehow the House of Representatives for adopting their own budget resolution as the reason why the Senate did not consider its own, simply defies logic. That is why the Budget Act created a concurrent resolution, that is why the Budget Act established a conference on a House-passed and Senate-passed budget resolution. I have been in many conferences on budget resolutions, and they were tough, but the fact that I knew they were going to be tough, never stopped me from doing my job as Chairman of the Budget Committee, and again the Senate has always adopted a budget resolution. So what other excuse is made for the Senate not acting on a budget? The President's budget submitted way back in February is the other excuse for us not acting here in the Senate. This has to be the weakest of all excuses. This is not the President's budget we are expected to adopt. This is not the President's budget resolution. This is the ``congressional budget.'' We are an equal branch of government in this balancing act between the Executive and the Legislative over fiscal policy. I have never been shy about expressing differences with Presidents of either party over the years when I though their budget proposals needed modifications. The same holds true for President Bush's executive budget plan transmitted to Congress last February. But I have always guarded the congressional prerogative to produce a ``congressional budget.'' This is our responsibility under the Budget Act and I would also go so far as to say, under the Constitution. Because the President has a budget plan that might differ from one that Congress might produce, is certainly no reason for the Congress not to act. In fact, I would argue it is a reason for the Congress to act. I do not think it should be any surprise that we begin a new fiscal year with no appropriation bills at the President's desk to sign. The failure of this Senate to consider and act on a budget blueprint, to sit down and tough it out back in the spring, has made the appropriation process stumble and fall this year. Last year in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Congress also did not have any regular appropriation bills enacted before the beginning of this fiscal year. This was understandable under the circumstances. But I contend the major reason the appropriation process has failed this year, is because we were not willing to adopt a budget resolution. You have to go back to 1996 to find the last time no appropriations were enacted before the beginning of the fiscal year. A time under President Clinton and the infamous 26 days of government shut-down and 14 continuing resolutions. No, there is no other way to say it and it is tough. This Majority Leader and this Chairman of the Budget Committee and this Senate failed in their one basic responsibility under the Budget Act--produce a budget resolution. And now everybody else is to blame but ourselves. I think those who take the time to understand what is going on here can see the hypocrisy of the Majority Leader and Chairman's statements.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a statement I want to start and then put the remainder in the Record, and if we get time in the next 2 weeks, I will come back a couple of times. The economy is much in the air now. It is not as much as perhaps the Iraq situation. But the Democratic Party and their leaders want to make it the important issue and put the war in the backseat. I don't think that is going to happen because the people of this country know the war is an imminent problem. And, if we have a war, the amount of money we plan to spend in the budget will probably get changed in a mammoth way to accommodate the needs of the war. When we had the war in the gulf the last time, our allies paid most of the bill. I recall looking at the formula that was drawn by the OMB. Actually, our allies just took the formula and said we are bound by the formula, and wrote the checks. Some of those paid as much as $13 billion for that war. That was our friend we were all arguing about which has a little oil. Here is our share. Japan didn't enter that war. They wrote a big check. We didn't pay much for that war. We don't have such an agreement now. Maybe somebody will start thinking about it. Let me talk about the economy. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said recently the U.S. economy has confronted very significant challenges over the past year: Major declines in the equity markets, which none of us thought would ever happen. Many Americans thought it would go on forever. The equity market had ballooned out of all proportion, and people such as Alan Greenspan were giving us warnings. It did begin its downward trend and it still is continuing on that path. To date, Dr. Greenspan said the economy appears to have withstood this set of blows very well--the blows being the investment spending, the retrenchment, the tragic terrorist attacks of last September. The Federal budget has been able to withstand that, and the economy has been able to withstand that. The economy is not in great shape right now. But not in great shape either at this time are many individual problems in this country. Consumption is strong. Unemployment gains are creeping back up. But to blame President Bush is pure unadulterated, partisan politics. For those who talk about it being his problem, the issue would be what would they do to fix it? Some would raise taxes by an enormous amount; or by repealing the cuts that were made. Nobody with their right mind about the economy would suggest that. But when you say it is not in very good shape today, what would you do about it? We will blame the President. What would you do positive about it? A large group would say raise taxes. I find it hard to believe if we had to do that and came to that point, very many people would vote for it when they finally understood the negative consequences of that. I want to mention every now and then I look to a Democratic economist who is of renown, and is of the other party, and everybody knows who he is; that is, Democratic economist Joe Stiglitz. He was Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve under President Clinton. He has written many articles and books on the economy. He has indicated, and I quote: This economy was slipping, and it was slipping into a recession even before Bush took office as President and before the corporate scandals-- That we haven't yet determined the breadth and number of them, but even before they started-- were rocking America. That was earlier yet than when the President took office. He says we were moving into a recession. What we did were the right things to get out of the recession. We cut taxes, and we increased spending of things that would spend quickly. We also at the same time, working with the Federal Reserve Chairman, got interest rates to come down. You remember how many times he cut them. And so you had the triad that would help a recession. I wonder how bad it would be if we had not done that. I wonder how bad the economy would be if we had not cut taxes at the right time and if, in fact, we did not have the Federal Reserve working in harmony reducing the interest rates, and if we had not spent some additional money, some which came because of the war costs. So the economic growth has started slowing down. It started in mid- 2000, well before the President took office. In 1997, more than 3 years before he was elected, you could begin to see, as you analyze corporate profits, they were coming down. This is 3 years before he went out on the steps and took the oath and became President of the United States. Rather than call this a Bush recession, we ought to call it a Clinton hangover. If you want to use another word for each one so there is nothing negative about it, that would be all right. In the late 1990s, we had a stock market boom and an investment boom. Much of the rise in the stock market and investment was sustainable, but some of it was not. We are now making up for the excesses of that period. We are finally coming to grips with the need to make sure companies are honest when they account for their profits. It seems as though for a few years there in the late-90s, some CEOs forgot about ethics and morals. They could say just about anything about their profits and no one was there to check. As long as the stock market was going up, no one seemed to care ethics and morals, and laws were not enforced. But now we're checking. Now the SEC is doing its job of making sure shareholders aren't getting ripped-off. Now we're going after the corporate criminals. A few years ago, the federal government looked the other way. Now, thanks in large part to President Bush, that's not happening any more. Having said that, I believe that when the economic history of this era is written, what will strike people is not that we had a recession but that things were not worse. In early 2000 the NASDAQ hit 5000. If you had told people that two years later the NASDAQ would be treading water at about 1200, as it is now, they might have assumed we had gone through some sort of Depression. Well, as bad as things got last year, we did not have a Depression. The policies we enacted over the past two years have made the economy better, not worse. If it weren't for those policies who knows how weak the economy would be now. Over and over again we hear that our policies are bad for the economy because they turned surpluses into deficits. That is just not true. I have staked a large part of my career arguing for fiscal discipline, much of it when it was unpopular, even with many members of my own party. But now is not the time quibble about the budget deficit. The deficit this year will be about 1.6 percent of GDP. But look at the same point in previous business cycles. Back in the 1976 recovery, the deficit was 4.2 percent of GDP. In the 1980s it peaked at 6 percent. In the early 1990s it peaked at 4.7 percent. So 1.6 percent is not large considering we are in the early stages of a recovery and in a war. If fiscal mismanagement were hurting the economy we would see rising interest rates. But interest rates are going down, not up. The rate on 10-year Treasury Notes is the lowest in 40 years. Homeowners are refinancing their mortgages at a record rate. Notice that those who claimed the Bush tax cut would lead to higher interest rates have been very quiet of late regarding that key point in their argument. Yes, things could be better. But long term, our economic fundamentals are strong. Productivity is growing at about a 5 percent rate and new innovations continue. Cutting taxes was the right thing to do and we did it just in the nick of time. I am proud of the work we did this year and last year in cutting taxes and my fellow Republicans and a few Democrats should be proud too. I thank the Senate for yielding time to me, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, that is very nice of you to offer. When you want to speak on the floor, you take the gamble. I have some other things to do. I had to wait a little longer for my position. You can rest assured that since I think it is pretty good, the Senate will hear more before we go out. And they will hear another one on two subjects that have to do with who is to blame for what, suggesting we ought to get on with doing things rather than blaming, which is what I think the American people would like. Thank you very much, I say to the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend and colleague Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for his 48 years of service to this country. Senator Thurmond was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1954, as the first person in U.S. history to be elected to a major office by a write-in ballot. As the longest serving Senator in the Senate, Strom has been a part of a lot of firsts in our Nation's history and he has contributed to every major policy issue facing this country for the last half century. He is a true legend. Strom has been a respected authority on military issues. He served in World War II, fighting in 5 battles, including the Normandy Invasion, and received 18 decorations, medals, and awards, including the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star for Valor, and the Legion of Merit With Oak Leaf cluster. In 1959, Strom attained the rank of major general. He has been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1959. His expertise in military issues has been a great benefit to our men and women in uniform. His love for the state of South Carolina has been a guiding force in his life. He has been a coach, an educator, an attorney, a State senator, a judge, a Governor, and, most importantly, an impeccable leader for the people of South Carolina. Strom has not only been a remarkable Senator, but an even better American. I know I speak for all my colleagues here in the Senate when I say that he will be missed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that the Senator from New Mexico be allocated the 8 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I will not get a chance today to accomplish what I intend to accomplish. I assure those who are listening they will not have to wait long to get the rest of it because as we get time this week, we will start talking a little bit. The majority side, led by the majority leader and the chairman of the Budget Committee, last week took to the floor one or two times with lengthy discussions about the American economy, with comments by each of them about who was to blame for the economic shortcomings that exist today. I start with the economic downturn. Many Members and a few Americans remember the name Joseph Stiglitz. He was chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. He is quoted in the Atlantic Monthly, October 2002, page 77. He was known as an erudite and academically brilliant economist. He summarized when asked: When did the downturn start? He said: The economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier. In this article he is explaining the American economy, which had been so buoyant for almost 10 years. We spoke of it from both sides of the aisle, with great admiration and fantastic respect for who did what, who did not do what, and why did this American economy grow. He is suggesting the beginnings of the downward trends, in response to a question: The economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office . . . Not when he sent us a budget; not when he sent us a tax bill; not when he recommended we have tax cuts to perk this economy up; not when he recommended we spend more money to continue perking it up. Before those events occurred, the American economy was slipping into recession. It is all right by this Senator that we come to the floor and state what we think. It is all right with me if we state them in political tones. It is all right with me if we state them with overtones that are patently political. It is someone's responsibility, when they think that is the case, to at least try to respond. I will not be able, in the next 5 or 6 minutes, to respond to what probably was more than an hour last week by two or three on the other side, led by their leader, the majority leader, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, and what they had to say when they blamed the President of the United States for almost everything that is going wrong with the economy, in spite of many of them knowing that this is the fact, that this is the salient fact--that it all began long before that. We may be even fortunate that the economy, in its downward pressures, did not get worse. Perhaps it did not get worse because we did some things right under the leadership of the President and with Congress. Although it was difficult, hard work, we did follow most of his suggestions to try to get out from the slippage. In less than a week we will enter the new fiscal year, the year of 2003. Let me repeat, in less than 1 week we will be entering the new Federal fiscal year, fiscal year 2003. As this new fiscal year approaches without us having enacted even one appropriations bill for next year, I have been struck by some of the statements being made on the floor--principally on that side of the aisle, and principally by leaders of the majority party. Recently, the majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee have taken to the floor to criticize the President's handling of the economy. I would like to be as honest as I can about this, so let's try to be honest as to what this is all about. This is politics, in my humble opinion, at its worst. Unwilling or afraid to face up to their own responsibilities, unable to defend their own record for failing to enact a budget in the Senate for the first time in the history of the Budget Act, they are now trying to confuse the public and somehow blame the President or the House of Representatives--which happens to be Republican by a few votes--for their failure. So now the time has come to play the blame game and to run away from whatever you have done and pin it on somebody else. That is this time of year. This is important, and I would like the record to be clear. Back in May, the majority leader blamed the lack of a budget on an evenly divided membership in the Senate. Earlier this month, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. McAuliffe, appearing on a Sunday morning show--I think it was ``Face The Nation''--said: Don't blame us: . . . we need 60 votes for a budget. Finally, last week the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, referring to an amendment that was voted in the Senate on June 20, clearly implying that it was a Senate budget, literally said here on the floor: . . . we got 59 votes for that proposal on a bipartisan basis. We needed a supermajority, which is 60. Let me be as clear as I possibly can. We have not voted on a budget resolution in the Senate this year. We have not voted on a budget this year in the Senate. This will be the first time in the Budget Act's nearly 27-year history that the Senate has not adopted a budget blueprint. Say what you want about what it is or what it is not, we have always seen fit to adopt one. As tough as it was, as many hard votes as it took in the hours allotted under law, we always got one. We got one out of the committee when we were practically tied, for all intents and purposes. But no budget resolution has been brought to the floor of the Senate to be debated and voted on this year. The chairman of the Budget Committee knows this. The majority leader knows this. To even hint that we have considered a budget is an absolute insult to those of us who worked to make this process a functional part of fiscal decisionmaking here in the Senate. If my time is up, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl, Senator Reid, and Senator Craig for commenting on the Domenici-Craig amendment, on which the Senator has joined from the very beginning. I hope everyone will understand this is a very serious situation. We honestly believe there is a compromise that would work, that would prove that we can clean up parts of our forest without in any way damaging the so-called old forest trees, doing it in almost a manicured fashion so long as it is understood what was permitted to do. It is imperative we send a signal to the American people, not all of whom are in the West. Those in America who saw the fires from a distance know something is wrong. They probably know it got in this condition over many years and will not be fixed tomorrow. They probably concluded we ought to try to fix it. We are trying to have a year consistent with good rules and good solid approach to management so we can start this process so the users of the forest, and those who recreate, graze cattle, have forests in their backyard, all understand we can begin this cleanup process and move in the right direction so we can start a more major cleanup next year when we try to put new policies into effect to save the forests and not see them go up in flames.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to exchange a couple of points with my colleague. I don't know if the Senator had a chance today to read the Santa Fe, NM, editorial about thinning forests.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator permit me to ask Senator Bingaman a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. In this very short time I will try to paraphrase it. They were talking about what a wonderful event it will be for the Santa Fe watershed--which the Senator and I have seen a number of times--when we get around to cleaning it and then thinning it, so that if water or fire would fall on the upper watershed, it would not do violence to the water, which is the long-term lifeblood for the city. I just wondered if the Senator might recognize that when we are finished tonight, if in fact the amendments are no longer in order, or if they are in order, that we will still be left with an issue of whether watersheds are going to be included in this new approach? And, if so, how much of a watershed--how much of that watershed can be done in Western States? Isn't that one of the issues remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Right.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for yielding the minute. I assume I have 10 seconds left.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, I hope after this vote, before we finalize this, we might one more time sit and look at this. I think we have narrowed the issue that is most in our minds to be resolved. I understand you have a proposal in good faith. We have one in good faith. Somehow or another it is assumed by both sides that theirs each will do what will help solve this problem. If we had a little more time, if you could meet with us, it would be greatly appreciated. I thank Senator Byrd.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Federal courthouse in Roswell, New Mexico for my longtime friend and ally, Representative Joe Skeen. I have had the highest honor of serving the State of New Mexico with this amazing man for more than 20 years. Joe was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1980 as a write-in candidate. He is only the third man in the history of this country to achieve this feat. As great an accomplishment as this was, history will show that it was among the least of his great achievements. As I'm sure you can imagine, the litany of successes that Joe has had in his work for New Mexico is much too long to go into here today. Suffice it to say that New Mexico is infinitely better for having had Joe Skeen representing us in Congress; this country is better for having had Joe participate in making decisions that affect the entire nation. Joe will be the first to tell you that he has not done it on his own, however. He has had a partner in his great adventure who has walked beside him every step of the way. Mary, his wife of 57 years, has been a calming influence in the storm that is the life of a Congressman. She has made it possible for Joe to continue to be a ranching Representative, running the family ranch while Joe has served in Washington. Joe has decided that it is time to return to that ranch to spend time with the family and the land that he loves so much. I know that Washington will go on without the Skeens but there is no way that it will be as a good a place. It is only a small token of the appreciation New Mexico and this country have for his many years of service, but I believe that renaming the Federal Courthouse in Roswell, New Mexico is a fitting tribute to this exceptional public servant. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Federal courthouse in Roswell, New Mexico for my longtime friend and ally, Representative Joe Skeen. I have had the highest honor of serving the State of New Mexico with this amazing man for more than 20 years. Joe was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1980 as a write-in candidate. He is only the third man in the history of this country to achieve this feat. As great an accomplishment as this was, history will show that it was among the least of his great achievements. As I'm sure you can imagine, the litany of successes that Joe has had in his work for New Mexico is much too long to go into here today. Suffice it to say that New Mexico is infinitely better for having had Joe Skeen representing us in Congress; this country is better for having had Joe participate in making decisions that affect the entire nation. Joe will be the first to tell you that he has not done it on his own, however. He has had a partner in his great adventure who has walked beside him every step of the way. Mary, his wife of 57 years, has been a calming influence in the storm that is the life of a Congressman. She has made it possible for Joe to continue to be a ranching Representative, running the family ranch while Joe has served in Washington. Joe has decided that it is time to return to that ranch to spend time with the family and the land that he loves so much. I know that Washington will go on without the Skeens but there is no way that it will be as a good a place. It is only a small token of the appreciation New Mexico and this country have for his many years of service, but I believe that renaming the Federal Courthouse in Roswell, New Mexico is a fitting tribute to this exceptional public servant. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do we have?