Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am convinced that, for some obvious reason, the President and some on the other side of the aisle do not want to fix Medicare. I think it might be fair to say they would rather have an issue than to fix it. It is not true of everybody, obviously. I have heard a number of Senators on both sides saying this is the year to reform Medicare. And, clearly, it can be reformed and fixed. There is no question about it. We saw that 10 Members out of 17--bipartisan-- came up with a proposal. I am hoping that after this budget resolution is completed--everybody knows there is plenty of latitude within this budget resolution to reform Medicare; there is nothing about this resolution that denies the opportunity to reform it, repair it, fix it, for many decades to come-- I am hopeful that perhaps the White House will tell us what their plan is. I think some of us, in due course, might like to sit down and talk to the President about it. We have all been very, very busy, and clearly this issue has, instead of getting the attention it deserves, sort of slid by, and here it sits with accusations and insinuations instead of reform. Having said that, I would like to talk just a little bit before I give my remarks about the policy for our Nation for the next 10 years. I would like to make sure that everybody understands this is the only bill or resolution that, under the law, has a time limit and has a limit on how much you can speak on amendments. That means that, literally, the time will run out, and the more amendments we have, obviously, the more time it is going to take, because every vote and every quorum call does not count against this statutory timeframe. So if we are not careful and do not try to work together, we could be here well into Saturday, which I do not think anyone wants. We want to get our work done. I have just stated for the Record, so nobody will misunderstand, that we have the rest of today and the rest of tomorrow--and then that is Thursday night. Many think we want to be finished by that time. With the amount of time it takes to vote and the amount of time for debate, we could have very little done by tomorrow night and still have 20 hours left, I guess, or 25, 21. But clearly it puts us a long way from finishing. I hope amendments will be germane. I intend this year, in a way that will challenge the Senate, to raise some issues about germaneness if some of the proposals have no impact on the budget and are just here to be provocative and to have a vote on something. Having said that, Mr. President, fellow Senators, I suggest that the United States of America's fiscal policy, economic policy, as far as our Nation's jobs and there being an abundance of jobs for our people, as far as there being good and even better jobs for our people, if they are educated and have some basic skills, when we look at our policy today--our fiscal, economic, monetary policy--we are in absolutely fantastic condition versus the rest of the industrial world. In fact, we read with genuine concern--not enthusiasm but concern-- how a great country like Germany is in the condition they are in. And, frankly, it bears talking about for a minute, because the United States is, and our economy is, strong and vibrant, because essentially we have a probusiness policy in many respects as compared with those who seek under other policies to compete in this world. We have low taxes compared to Germany. We have many things that promote our competitiveness and help our businesses, large and small, compete, make money, hire people, pay them better, and pay more taxes. We ought to look out and see what is going wrong in the other parts of the world where their economies aren't working. It is profoundly troublesome to see that the third largest economy in the world, Germany, is floundering. Watch what people are saying. They are saying: ``We are overtaxed. We don't have any freedom with reference to labor policies.'' They are saying: ``We have the longest holidays, the longest vacations, people retire the earliest, they start to work later.'' That great productive country, built mostly on the high productivity of their people, is faltering. We ought to learn from that. We ought to look at the next decade and say, How do we keep this prosperity going? I want to say right upfront, regardless of what the White House says about this budget, one way to make sure this prosperity machine and our jobs continue into the next decade is to recognize that there is a genuine surplus besides the Social Security surplus, and we ought to think about how do we use that to make sure that America continues with a prosperity machine and growth. I submit that to put on hold cutting taxes for the American people is the wrong way to ensure that growth, prosperity, and the creation of jobs. Our opposition, the Democratic Party and the White House, can use every bit of language they can muster to talk about us having the wrong approach to tax cuts. Nobody knows what the tax cuts are going to be under this budget resolution, because the committees of this Congress have to make that decision. They can get up and talk about tax cuts for the rich all they want, but there is room in this budget resolution to fix the marriage tax penalty. There is room to fix the research credits that our American businesses ought to take. We ought to make it permanent and say they are there so you can grow and prosper and make more and more breakthroughs. There is allowance there for a capital gains change. Yes, there is money there, if it is the will of the Congress, to cut marginal rates. To say this budget resolution, in that regard, is to cut the taxes of the rich is untrue. Unequivocally, we believe when there is a surplus that is this big, and an American economy that we want to continue to flourish and grow--we have been told there are only three things you can do with a surplus for the good of America. They are, one, applying the surpluses to the debt to reduce the debt held by the public. People such as Alan Greenspan say if you could find a way to do that, that is the best way. We have put $1.8 trillion of this surplus, every cent of the Social Security surplus, against the debt. The President bragged about his budget, reducing the debt held by the public, and how putting money in trust funds but not spending it and waiting to redeem it later with an IOU would reduce the public debt. He said it recently again as he summarized an answer to a question. He reduces the debt held by the public less than this budget because he doesn't put it on the debt. He puts it somewhere where it can be spent. As a matter of fact, in the first 5 years of the President's budget, he spends more than the whole surplus that was accumulated during that period of time, the whole onbudget surplus, that which could be used for tax cuts. Because it doesn't necessarily belong to seniors, he spends more than the accumulation of that surplus in this budget. Now, frankly, there are some who will say the President's budget isn't before the Senate. We are going to make sure it is brought before us. Let's see if we can vote on it, because the President has been claiming things about his budget that are not true. Let me start with one. There is not one nickel, not one penny, not one dollar, in this budget for prescription drugs. As a matter of fact, there are no new expenditures for Medicare in his budget because he decided to put the surplus away so you couldn't use it for anything else and put it in a trust fund that is not spent for Medicare. Two Cabinet members have told us there is not a nickel in here to be spent on prescription drugs. You wouldn't believe that. That means you have to reform the program to get the prescription drugs. Mr. President, the Republican budget does a great job with reference to Medicare as compared to the President's. We anxiously await a real plan. Since I don't think there really is one here, we anxiously await his plan. We anxiously await the plan of those on the other side who are critical. Let's see what their plan is. We increase Medicare spending $200 billion more than the President over the next decade. He cuts about $20 billion over the next 10 years, but he would say it is just removing payments from hospitals. That is where the money goes for the Medicare people of this country: It goes to hospitals, doctors, x ray equipment, MRIs, and all the other things. We don't cut that $20 billion; it is still in the budget. On top of that, about $100 billion of the surplus is left unused--$100 billion--to be used in our budget, if necessary, for a Medicare reform package. I remind Members that the 10 members of the special committee on Medicare, which the President wholeheartedly joined last year in saying let's let them tell us how to do it, didn't even use any extra money and they covered the poor with prescription drugs through the reform of the program. I am not suggesting that the whole thing can be fixed that way, but I give you that example, and we left $100 billion there for that purpose. We can go on. But I will proceed now to just evaluate our budget, little by little. First of all, we are beginning to ask the Senate to vote also on whether they want to save and apply to the debt 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. We do that. The reason it is important is because the President doesn't do it. Now, the President, in the first few years of this, spends Social Security money. But he says if you wait 15 years, there will be enough of it to make Social Security's trust fund whole. Year by year, he uses portions of it until some point out in the future when the amount is small and then he leaves it all in the trust fund. As I see it, we are going to confront the issue of Medicare here on the floor. We are going to be delighted and pleased to tell the senior citizens of this country that very major Medicare reform awaits the cooperation of the President and that there is ample resources in this budget to take care of that. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe. She encouraged and got passed unanimously with every Democrat supporting it this source of money that won't be used for anything else but can be used, if desired, to help reform the Medicare. Let me quickly tick through what we do that we are proud of. One, the budget accounts for every penny of the Social Security trust fund and leaves it in the budget unspent to reduce the debt. Later on, we will introduce legislation to make it near impossible to spend it. We followed the leadership of the President, the minority leader, and many others, who said maintain the fiscal discipline established in the 1997 agreement. The minority leader challenged us: Don't break the caps, don't break the agreement we entered into 3 years ago. Stick to the caps. We did that. Now, watch, as the debate progresses; there will be innumerable amendments saying they want more money in domestic accounts. Our question will be, if you are going to stick with the caps, as recommended by your own leader on the minority side, what are you going to cut to make sure you can pay for more than we provided? We provided the caps, the exact amount required by law. Incidentally, some think a budget resolution is in control of these budget spending limits. That statute says if you violate them without changing the law, you will cut every program in the Government. It is called a sequester to enforce the agreed-upon limits. We return to the American taxpayer overpayments they made to the Federal Government, not only because they are entitled to it, but they should not wait 15 years for a tax cut, as implied or recommended by some. We create a non-Social Security surplus of more than $100 billion, which I have just described. It preserves the Social Security surplus balances of $1.8 trillion over the next decade. It is not touched in the expenditure or the tax side of this budget because it belongs to the Social Security trust fund for use in reform and certainly not to spend. It is interesting on that score, while I am moving along, that nobody is going to vote for the President's budget because, as a matter of fact, in the first 5 years he spends $158 billion of the surplus belonging to Social Security. After they all vote down here to keep 100 percent, how are they going to vote for the President's budget when it spends it? The budget resolution has another challenge in it for us. We do not put a wall up between the defense expenditures and domestic expenditures because things are tight. Senators want the opportunity--and the Budget Committee members wanted to preserve the opportunity--to argue over defense numbers versus domestic numbers. We will see some amendments today that will seek to take money from defense and spend it on something else; that is, if the amendments offered in committee are offered here. That probably won't pass no matter on what you are going to spend the money on the domestic side because we are on the verge of a war, and I am quite sure everybody would be frightened to take money out of defense for domestic programs at this point. But we will probably hear the argument. So we have increased spending on national security. And, yes, for those who say it is too tight a budget, I repeat, we followed the admonition of the minority leader who said, ``Don't break the caps,'' and it is a fixed dollar number. We used the number. We divvied it up among all the programs of Government. Some don't like the way we apportioned it, but I will tell you that we decided to put more in education, knowing that it will not go for categorical programs in education of the past but will go down to the local level to be spent on reform measures, so long as there is accountability as one of the qualities. We put $3.3 billion more in the first year and $28 billion over the next 5 years. That is over and above the $100 billion we would expend in the next 5 years. That is far in excess of what the President was able to do. Yet, the President said, ``I am bound by the same caps and I am following them.'' So we are following them also. We just decided other parts of Government could be cut more than he suggested, and we put it in priorities like defense and education. And, yes, the President speaks of what values do you reflect in the budget. I have just expressed them. The taxpayers--we worry about them. One of our values is to see that they don't overpay their Government. Secondly, we want more for education. We are in an era of reform, and we are willing to say let's put more in because it will be helpful to reform the educational process. We said the President didn't put in enough for veterans. We put in $1.1 billion more for veterans. That is our value. How can you take the medical system for veterans and cut it and not give it a slight increase, which everybody knows it needs? We fully funded all the crime prevention laws, the trust-funded money that goes into crime prevention. These are good priorities. There will be some who will stand up and say, yes, they are good, but you had to reduce foreign aid. Well, so be it. If we are going to all live by the same numbers, then let's all talk about priorities. I remind everyone, if they want to exceed the targets, those caps, those limits on expenditures, clearly they need 60 votes to do it because it violates the Budget Act. That is how important it is. It is a major hurdle because we wanted fiscal responsibility. I am willing to listen to how difficult it will be to live within those limits. I understand it is. I don't have a solution right now because I don't see how you can report a budget resolution out that violates the budget law of the land. I don't see how you can do that. I choose not to do that. The committee chose overwhelmingly not to do that. I might just suggest, if people are wondering about where the money might come from to establish the right priorities and still have to reduce other programs, the GAO recently reviewed the budget and they have a high-risk series which lists 26 areas in this budget this year-- nearly 40 percent--which have been high risk for 10 years. High risk, by definition, is programs that are vulnerable to waste, fraud and error. We leave them there. For the most part, we increase them every year, and we ask GAO to tell us which are the risky programs that we probably won't get our dollar's worth from. Then we do nothing about it. Second, it is clear that some programs won't grow and will remain at the 1999 level and will have to be reduced below a freeze, as the President's budget requested. We are going to take some of where he cut and reduced. I suggest that the committees and the administration take to heart the Government Performance and Results Act, which specifically identifies low-performing and inefficient programs. I am sure some Senators are hearing for the first time that such lists and assessments and evaluations exist. This resolution assumes reduced funding for political appointees in the administration. It assumes some mandatory savings scored to appropriators in the area of the SSI Program and child support and enforcement. The resolution assumes repeal of the depression era and arcane Davis- Bacon and Service Contract Act and other administrative savings. The resolution assumes that Ginnie Mae will become a private operation and its auction creates nearly $2.8 billion in offsets next year. And, yes, the resolution assumes some of the administration's proposed offsets, fees, are assumed for various agencies in the Federal Government--FSIS and the President's proposed $200 million broadcasters lease fee. In the area of mandatory savings. The resolution does not assume any of the President's nearly $20 billion reductions in Medicare over the next five years. Medicare spending will indeed increase from $195 billion this year by over $200 billion to a total of $395 billion in 2009, an annual increase of 7.3 percent. And the resolution assumes $6.0 billion in additional resources will be allocated to the Agriculture Committee to address the issue of depressed incomes in that sector. Finally, the resolution assumes that expiring savings provisions in 2002, that were enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget agreement, will be extended. This applies to all such provisions except expiring Medicare savings provisions. Between 2003 and 2009 these provisions would save less than $20 billion. For revenues the resolution assumes that tax reductions will be phased in and over the next five years will return overpayments to the American public of nearly $142 billion and $778 billion over the next ten years. For 2000, paid for tax cuts of up to $15 billion are possible. How these tax reductions are carried out will of course be determined by the Finance Committee and ultimately the Congress and the President. However, I believe elimination or reduction in the marriage penalty could easily be accommodated within these levels as well as extension of expiring R&D tax credits, self employed health insurance deductions, certain education credits and or general reductions in tax rates phased in over time. Finally, the resolution, being cautious, over a 10 year period, projects a non-budget surplus of over $100 billion. This money could be needed for unexpected emergencies or contingencies, it also could support the cost of funding transition costs for Medicare reform, or if nothing else it will continue to further retire debt held by the public. Two procedural issues need to be noted--a rule change as it relates to defining emergencies and a clarification that when there is an on- budget surplus, those amounts are not subject to pay-go rules. Let me close by saying that under this resolution, debt held by the public will decline by nearly $463 billion more than under the President's budget. This is true even if one treats the President's government equity purchases as debt reduction. Why do we reduce debt more than the President? First, the President spends $158 billion of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. In contrast, the committee reported resolution saves the entire Social Security surplus. And second, let me remind the Senate of one other thing about the President's spending proposal which may surprise many--his spending costs more than the resolution's assumed tax reductions. This is true over both the 5 year and 10 year period. The President's budget spends 35 percent of the Social Security surplus over the next five years on programs unrelated to Social Security or Medicare. The resolution before us today assumes that we return to the American taxpayer their overpayments and this sum of money is less smaller than the President's spending increases. That is why we can save the entire Social Security surplus and why he can not. That is also why the administration is opposed to the Social Security lock box idea, because that would stop them from spending the Social Security surplus. We will have more to say about the President's budget plan later in the debate, when we let the full Senate consider whether they want to support his budget plan or not. For now however, what is before the Senate is S. Con. Res. 20. It is a good resolution. It is a reasonable resolution. Once again it does four things: It protects 100% Social Security surpluses. It maintains the fiscal discipline this Senate overwhelmingly supported in 1997 and was most recently reaffirmed by the minority leader. It returns to the American public their tax overpayments. And finally, it prudently and cautiously projects on-budget surpluses for further debt reduction or for supporting unexpected emergencies, and possible transition costs for true Medicare reform like the one recently voted on by 11 of the 17 members of the National Commission on the future of Medicare. It is a good start on budgeting into the next century. Mr. President, I will also comment on those from the agricultural sectors. We got your letter and your concerns of a bipartisan nature. The resolution assumes $6 billion in additional resources to be allocated to the Agriculture Committee to address issues of the depressed parts of the agricultural community. I am going to stop at this time and merely indicate that this debate will proceed. Amendments will be forthcoming. I am hopeful that when the day ends, we will have a budget resolution similar to this one, and let's see how the year evolves as we try to implement it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. But that will not preclude opening statements if the Senator has some.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me. I note the presence of Senator Boxer. I have not given any opening remarks, and we are trying to line up some amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will give additional time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, leaves the floor, I want to congratulate him on his efforts on behalf of sound fiscal policy and good principles for the future and a vision of the future which I believe is an exciting one if we will just bear with it and do what we must do. It is pretty obvious from the comments he has made here that we ought to be able to reform Medicare and make it live and available for many decades to come. And we ought to do it this year. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot. All we need to know is what the President wants to do. The President has not told us what he wants to do. This budget resolution contains a very valid program, very live and very capable, if the committees can put it together. It doesn't put a plan together; it just says what the resources are and how much is available. I will go into that in a little more detail in my opening remarks, which I will not give now. There are two Senators who would like to speak now. I ask, on our side, if Senator Helms could proceed and then I see Senator Kennedy here. I think he would like to proceed. I do not want to limit him. I wish to make my opening remarks after him and then we will try to stir up an amendment. If others have opening remarks, I hope they will hurry down here, because I suggest we are talking about our recess. I want to tell you a little bit. What if we have 60 amendments? People will now say we have plenty of time; we have all day today, all day tomorrow, which is Thursday. We have Friday. But people want to start leaving. They say that is 35 hours, 15 each day; that will do it. Mr. President, if we have 60 amendments, the vote time and the quorum time surrounding them, since they do not count, the vote time does not count and quorums do not count, that could be 20 hours on its own; 35 hours of debate plus 20 hours to vote, that is 55 hours. This would mean at least 5 full days, well into Sunday, because we do not actually use 15 or 20 hours out of a day. We try to do 8 or 9 or 10. But even if you stay late, you do not get in 15 hours. So we have to limit our amendments. We are working on that on our side. We also, at some point, have to agree to take less time on amendments than the 2 hours allowed under the statute. With that, I yield whatever time Senator Helms needs and then a Democrat can proceed. It will be Senator Kennedy. Then I would like to be recognized after Senator Kennedy. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to attend a hearing for about 25 or 30 minutes, and we will have a Budget Committee Senator down very shortly. In the meantime, Senator Stevens is given whatever privileges I have. I yield to Senator Thurmond as much time as he desires. I will give him that time off the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am quite sure my friend Senator Lautenberg would concur that we all know, more or less, what the issues are. We have gone through the Budget Committee and most of the major issues have been debated there and amendments offered--some accepted, some failed. I don't think there is really any reason we cannot finish at a reasonable time and take this recess if Senators on both sides cooperate. I urge that on my side also. There is tentatively, on my side--I know when we talk to them that it is not going to remain this way, but they are talking about 30 or 40 amendments, almost all of which are sense-of-the-Senate amendments. We will never get out of here if that happens. Normally the minority has about twice as many. So add that up and we will have 120. We could just start voting now and we would not go home for the recess. So I urge we consider our own well-being and what is really necessary to get this job done.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume we are now on the resolution and time is now running under the 35 hours that remain.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the presence and use of small electronic calculators be permitted on the floor of the Senate during consideration of the fiscal year 2000 concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask consent the privilege of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff, of the Budget Committee staff on the Republican side: Austin Smythe and Anne Miller.

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of Senator Lautenberg, I ask unanimous consent that Sue Nelson and Ted Zegers be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff of the Senate Budget Committee, including fellows and detailees named on the list that I send to the desk, be permitted to remain on the Senate floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 20.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the majority leader, I would like to make the following announcement. This morning, the Senate will begin consideration of S. Con. Res. 20, the budget resolution, with up to 35 hours for debate. Members should expect the next couple of days of session to be longer than usual, with rollcall votes beginning early each morning and continuing late into the evening. The cooperation of all Senators will be necessary in order for the Senate to complete its work prior to the beginning of the Easter recess. Senators who plan to offer amendments to the budget resolution should contact the managers of the bill in order to facilitate a smooth and orderly process during the consideration of the resolution. I thank colleagues in advance for their cooperation. Mr. President, yesterday my good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, asked if he might make a statement this morning that he considers very important, historically. I yield the floor to let him make that statement. I yield him as much time as he desires.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished President.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, are we under some time agreement?

Mr. DOMENICI. I will use only 1 minute. Let me say, I had no reluctance to ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee to read the President's letter. Without having seen it, I know it would not contain words saying ``and if you do not vote in support I will not send them in.'' It merely said, ``I sure would like to have you joining me.'' President Bush didn't do that. He said, ``Concur or we don't have a war.'' There is a big difference.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't believe Senator Warner, with all the respect that we hold for him, should stand on the floor of the Senate and say that anyone who votes that we should not go in there will not be in support of the military people who happen to go in there because the President prevailed. As a matter of fact, most of the Senators who have supported the military of the United States to the highest extent over the years will probably be voting against sending them in, but will be right there supporting them, and the Senator knows that and they should know that. I do my share in my little role as a budgeteer to see that the military gets sufficient money, and I will do that again this year. I hope you all come down here when people want to take the money away from them. Just because I don't like what they are doing doesn't mean I don't love the military and the men and women out there doing it. We will support them, but we have a right to warn the American people and tell them what this is all about. If you say, What is going to happen if we don't? I ask you, what happened in the other countries of the world that had revolutions where hundreds of thousands of people were killed and we didn't go in because it wasn't in our national interest? I happen to think that is the case here. It is not in our national interest.

Mr. DOMENICI. What does it say?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and Senator Stevens, before he leaves the floor, I am going to ask a question of the Senator from Texas on the speech that he just made, although it is not directly on point. I thank Senator Gramm for the comments he made about Social Security and protecting it and the lockbox. He has explained the lockbox as legislation he has reviewed in my behalf, and described it as making it very difficult, if not impossible, to spend the Social Security surplus, because to do so one would have to increase the debt beyond that which is agreed upon, the debt held by the public, and in so doing they would need a supermajority. Since the administration says they want to save the Social Security trust fund, do you have any idea--can my colleague imagine why the Secretary of the Treasury would be against it?

Mr. DOMENICI. That would require statute law to do what I have recommended and what my staff and I have worked out? We would have to bring that to the floor, and that will be another test after the budget resolution about how serious people are about not touching the Social Security trust fund; is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask one thing further. My colleague has been here working with me for most of my time on the Budget Committee, although I was there for a while when he was in the House working on budgets there. I have talked, heretofore, about whether or not we can lock up the Social Security trust fund. But it is my recollection that no legislation of the type that I propose has ever been suggested to the Congress as a means of not spending that money. Is that your recollection also?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had the letter read to us this afternoon. There is nothing in that letter that says he will not do it if we do not agree. That is the difference. It says: I ask, but I am going to do it anyway.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I spoke at length today, so I will try very hard to not even use the 2 minutes. Mr. President, this President has decided that he doesn't need our approval. This vote tonight has nothing to do with whether we agree or disagree, and we are sending that message to him, because he has already told us he is going to do it. So it is a different request. It is a request saying, ``I am going to do this. Would you tonight concur that it is OK?'' What a difference a President makes. George Bush didn't do that when the United States had a far more serious problem dependent upon oil-- oil in jeopardy in the Middle East, Iraq invades a sovereign country. And what does he do? He sends us a letter and says, ``Would you concur, and if you do not I will not do it.'' Now that is the kind of true, dedicated President that gives credit to the elected representatives of the American people. We talk about this great Senate. Well, there is a great House, also. And they deserve the right to pass judgment on this. And for us to sit around here tonight saying we finally made the point, and we are going to get to decide whether he is or isn't, that is just a hoax. I do not believe we ought to meddle in civil wars that have been going on for 800 years. We are not going to solve it unless we commit to have a military force on the ground for perhaps 100 years, because we are going to get involved through NATO. In fact, I think we ought to begin to ask our NATO general, we ought to begin to wonder how in the world does he get in the middle of these negotiations and then he makes commitments through NATO and we say we have to live up to what has been committed through NATO? I think we ought to be able to commit that, too. It is our law. It is not the other countries. They are putting in very little. I yield the floor.