Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Roth is in control of 15 more minutes, so if the Senator desires to yield time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President and fellow Senators, we have before us a historic resolution, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with historic and brave Senators on it. If we adopt this and follow it, we will save the Medicare program instead of arguing about it. The basic contention here, plain and simple, is that prominent Democrat Senators are joining with Republicans saying let's quit arguing; let's fix it. That is the principal thrust of this resolution. I say to Senator Breaux, Senator Kerrey, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Frist, you are to be commended and lauded, because I predict on this day we have started down a short path before the year ends of fixing Medicare for the seniors permanently. We do not have to sit around here and argue about IOUs that the President wants to transfer to a trust fund without dedicating any revenue to the trust fund. How do you fix a trust fund by putting in IOUs when it is all based on revenues coming into the trust fund to pay the bills? I join Senators--I am the fifth Member--as the Budget chairman, because I believe you are on the way, on the road to real success for our seniors. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a UC?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, if you are asking me, it would be preferable to wait, if you would.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to seek the yeas and nays on an additional amendment that is pending.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time has the Senator used?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 161, the Voinovich amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask my friend if he will yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DOMENICI. I might say to Senators, we have been working on this for a long time. We will see if we can't put ourselves in a position where we might finish a little earlier, perhaps even tonight. I am not sure. This has been worked out by the majority leader, minority leader, and those of us on the floor. I assume there has been consultation elsewhere. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader I ask unanimous consent that following the previously allotted debate times, the following debate times be in order: Hollings amendment on debt reduction; Craig amendment No. 146; Durbin amendment, emergencies; Crapo amendment No. 163; Boxer amendment No. 175; Sessions amendment No. 210--I ask each of the above-listed amendments be limited to 7\1/2\ minutes equally divided in the usual form. I ask unanimous consent that, following the conclusion of those debates, I be recognized in order to yield back all remaining debate time on the budget resolution. Therefore, the Senate will then proceed to a stacked series of votes on the remaining pending amendments. I further ask that the first vote be 15 minutes in length, with remaining votes in sequence limited to 10 minutes each, with 2 minutes equally divided between each vote for brief explanations of the amendments. Finally, I ask the votes alternate between Republicans and Democrat amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank all Senators.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have a copy, please?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged to me for the next 5 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITZGERALD.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise with great empathy and sympathy and heartfelt concern about the farmers of the United States. That is why in the budget before you we put $6 billion of new money for crop insurance and other things which was, indeed, modified in the committee so as to accommodate farm Senators by even making sure it was available this coming year. Now, I guess there is an adage around that it is harder to manage the surplus than it was a deficit. I agree with that statement without a question. And here today it is very, very interesting. My wonderful friends on the other side of the aisle, I am sure joined by some on my side of the aisle, are here on the floor about 2\1/2\ months after the President of the United States sends his budget to us, and they are lamenting the terrible state of economics for the farmers of America. I did not ask any of them, as they spoke--and I do not know that I will--but frankly, the President of the United States knew about all this. Isn't it interesting he asked for not one red cent for the farmers--zero. Typical. Typical. There is a crisis prevailing. If there is one, the President ought to know about it. He puts nothing in the budget. We put $6 billion in thinking we are being helpful. The President claims he lives within the caps, he isn't breaking any budget. Of course he is not. He did not even provide the $6 billion we did in our budget resolution. Now, $6 billion isn't enough. Hold on, everybody. This is $6 billion a year. This is $30 billion. When is enough enough? So $30 billion of new money on top of the $6 billion we put in is $36 billion in 5 years in new money for agriculture. Frankly, I am fully aware that there is a problem. There are some other sectors of America with problems, big problems--steel, oil and gas. All kinds of pieces of the American economy are having trouble because of the world economy. We are doing a little bit here and there, but we cannot go in and make everybody whole everywhere in America when we are having a downturn that adversely affects their business. If the Senators proposing this want to spend more money because they want a new agriculture program, then I submit they ought to go to the Agriculture Committee and get a new agriculture program written into the laws of this land. I believe they would not get it done. I believe that is why they did not do it. So each year they come along and add a few more billions, and while saying we still have a law around they, little by little, destroy it. If that is what they want, they ought to say it. If they think this amendment is repealing the law we have on the books, let them say it, so then we can at least add this as an amendment to repeal the competitive agricultural reforms that we put in place not too many years ago. Frankly, it will be difficult for some not to vote for $30 billion more in support money for farmers when there is already $6 billion in the bill and when the President of the United States asks for none-- zero--zip. No. It is kind of interesting. When is enough enough? It seems to me that this amendment is an indication that for some it does not matter what you put in a budget resolution because it will not be enough. I believe $6 billion in new money for agriculture, addressing the most significant issue they have, crop insurance, is sufficient at this point. Maybe we have an emergency, maybe the President should have looked at the emergency before he sends us a budget with nothing in it for farmers so we have to come along and put it in, cut other programs in our arsenal, or in this case reduce the tax cuts that we planned for the American people. I just do not think that is right. I would hope some would listen today. I am not sure how many. Normally I try to accommodate, but I don't think, as one trying to write budgets, that I can accommodate today. Either they win or my position prevails. If I could find another way, I would try it. I just do not think there is one. Either we decide that in an era of surpluses the American taxpayer does not matter a bit--you remember what some of us said, why it would be difficult to manage a surplus. You remember? Because we will spend it all; we will spend it all. Why did the Senator from New Mexico say, ``Yes, you can claim you put it all on the surplus and it's sitting there to get rid of the debt.'' Why did I say, I do not choose that method. I choose it for all the Social Security money, but I do not choose it for everything. I said, ``Because you know what, we'll spend it. Then we'll have bigger Government, the public will be paying for bigger Government, and they'll be paying more and more taxes.'' And that isn't the right kind of America. So, Mr. President, I have some additional time, and depending upon what is said in the remaining 5 minutes that they have on the other side, that the proponents have, I may yield back the remainder of my time. But for now I reserve it.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to do that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think the Senator is right, that this is a question of priority. The Senator mentioned missile defense. He said it will cost $1.5 billion. We don't need it; we shouldn't pay for it. What would be prioritizing would be if he would move to strike the missile defense system. The problem is, if he did that, he would find that not only the American people would say no, but 65 or 70 Senators would say no. He picked the wrong program, because most Americans think we have a missile defense system. They think if a rogue country or North Korea or China sent a missile to the United States that we could destroy it. The truth of the matter is, whoever thinks that is wrong. We don't. Republicans have been saying, and now we are joined by Democrats, use every single technological achievable end to get a missile defense system started. That is a high priority, too. I don't know what else the Senator mentioned, but whatever he mentioned, the truth of the matter is he could come to the floor and say farmers have a higher priority than this whole list of things in the Government. That is not what is being done; it is just making the Government bigger. In fact, it is very interesting. It is a tax-and-spend proposal. It is increasing the taxes on the people of this country because we intend to give them back some to pay for more Government. I think Government is about as big as it ought to be. I remind everyone, the President put nothing in for the state of emergency. For a President who is worried about Main Street, and everything else alluded to on the floor, isn't that interesting? We did what we thought was right and put in $6 billion. The first amendment that was sent to the desk would have cost $60 billion. I was in error--now it is $30, it has been modified. The price is cut in half in about 26 minutes. I laud the Senator for modifying it. I wish it were still at 60--we could argue about 60. That sounded like a good, round number. Having said that, I reserve my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have. Amendment No. 178, As Further Modified

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask Senator Lautenberg if he would give me 2 minutes of his time.

Mr. DOMENICI. He said he will yield me 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has again passed legislation to convey unwanted federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. While identical legislation passed the Senate last summer, it was unable to get through the House of Representatives due to political wrangling in the waning days of the 105th Congress. Meanwhile, Rio Arriba has been waiting for access to this much-needed land and facilities. The vast majority of this Northern New Mexico county is in federal ownership. Communities find themselves unable to grow or find available property necessary to provide local services. This legislation allows for transfer by the Secretary of the Interior real property and improvements at an abandoned and surplus administrative site for the Carson National Forest to the County. The site is known as the old Coyote Ranger District Station, near the small town of Coyote, new Mexico. The Coyote Station will continue to be used for public purposes, including a community center, and a fire substation. Some of the buildings will also be available for the County to use for storage and repair of road maintenance equipment, and other County vehicles. Mr. President, the Forest Service has determined that this site is of no further use to them, since they have recently completed construction of a new administrative facility for the Coyote Range District. The Forest Service reported to the General Services Administration that the improvements on the site were considered surplus, and would be available for disposal under their administrative procedures. At this particular site, however, the land on which the facilities have been built is withdrawn public domain land, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. The Administration is supportive of the legislation. Since neither the Bureau of land Management nor the Forest Service have any interest in maintaining Federal ownership of this land and the surplus facilities, and Rio Arriba County desperately needs them, passage of S. 278 is a win-win situation for the federal government and New Mexico. I hope this meritorious bill will be passed promptly in the House, and quickly become law to give Rio Arriba County the necessary community land to grow.