Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a number of Senators who voted on the motion to table which I proposed indicated that they would like to see an expression regarding the interest rates, but not a mandate. I ask unanimous consent--I am not sure I will get it --but I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that I offer a similar resolution, but the resolve clause would state: It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Open Market Committee should consider reducing the Federal funds rate.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to do this, because there is a desire to talk for a minute. Without losing my right to move to table this when we come out of a quorum call, I ask unanimous consent that we can have a quorum call and that I may reserve the right to move to table. Is that language precise enough?

Mr. DOMENICI. I gave the Senator the language. I believe I am entitled to make a motion to table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have been here a long time and I voted on that resolution that the Senator is talking about. I didn't think I ever voted on a resolution that told the Federal Reserve Board what to do in precise terms like, ``Lower the interest rates.'' The resolution that we adopted overwhelmingly was much more in the tone and tenor and words of what I recommended. It says: ``They should continue to take such actions as are necessary to achieve and maintain interest rates low enough to generate significant economic growth.'' Frankly, that is precisely what we ought to be doing. We ought to be saying take whatever action is necessary; we should not say to them that we are saying, as a matter of policy, you should lower the interest rates. We ought not do that to the Federal Reserve. It will not do anything but discredit them over the long run and add instability where stability is needed.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is not that I am worried about arguments, but we have been changing to accommodate. But I will not oppose the Senator having 1 more minute.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the question before the U.S. Senate is not whether the Federal Reserve Board should reduce interest rates; it is whether or not the U.S. Senate should say that the Federal Open Market Committee should promptly reduce the Federal funds rate. Any Senators who have traveled the world, including Europe, and are asked what institution that the United States has in place that is the best thing going for global success, American capitalism and prosperity, guess what they will say? They won't say the Senate, they won't say the House, they won't say the President; they will say the Federal Reserve Board and its Chairman, who have been permitted, by act of Congress, to act independently of political pressures. Now, frankly, there is a very serious problem with global economic faltering. Nobody has an answer to it. There are many suggestions as to what we didn't do that we should do. But I submit, for the world to find out, after Alan Greenspan and this Federal Reserve Board have done a most marvelous job in controlling interest rates and monetary policy that the whole world is looking at and saying they did it perfect, absolutely right--for us to come along now and say, ``Well, look, that is really so, but we would like to tell them right now''--in a way taking away some of their independence because we want to put political pressure on them--``that they should promptly reduce interest rates,'' frankly, I believe we will send the wrong signal, because I think the signal we need is the stability of the Federal Reserve Board making decisions on behalf of America, and America in a global market. That is the kind of stability that the world is looking for. You know, I don't think anybody believes--and I am not saying Senator Harkin does--that we should regularly on the floor of the Senate be critiquing the Federal Reserve Board and then telling them what they ought to do. I don't think anybody thinks that. But I think we are falling right into that trap here. I have suggested--and I give it again to the sponsor--why don't we do what we ought to do and say the Federal Open Market Committee should seriously consider reducing the Federal funds rate? That way, we would be chiming in by whatever vote occurs with many people who think that, but we would not take this time in economic history to say that we are opting to say that the U.S. Senate says you should do it promptly. That is my argument. The Senate can do what it would like. I believe we ought not adopt it. If we want to state our case in this regard, we ought to state it another way, so that we are just joining in with comments and observations, but not drawing a conclusion that says if we were doing it, we would change it right now and we urge that you do that and do it promptly. That is essentially the issue. Mr. President, we are in the most complicated quasi-world recession that we have been in perhaps in modern times because capitalism is faltering around the world--not because capitalism and entrepreneurship doesn't work, but there are institutions that have fallen apart in other countries that are affecting us. I have no doubt that the Federal Reserve Board is going to do the right thing. There is no doubt in my mind that they are. I also suggest that if they reduce interest rates, everybody should not expect that the world economy is going to get fixed. There are many serious problems that it won't fix. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate that. I guess while we are in a quorum call, time is not running. I ask unanimous consent that up to 5 minutes of the quorum call not be charged and, thus, we will have 5 additional minutes before the time the Senator from New Mexico makes a motion to table.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I as unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to the order, I have a right to move to table at this point. I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senators, I will speak to the leader and maybe we can offer it somewhere else. We cannot offer it on this bill. I regret we cannot vote on it. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, are we in morning business?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I say to my good friend, Senator Grassley, I was here for most of his speech and discussion. I commend him for not only what he said today, which many, many people ought to read, but because of his constant effort in the Senate and, obviously, back in his home State directed at trying to get our young people some help with reference to this siege that is upon them with reference to illegal drugs. I commend the Senator from Iowa for it. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 2503 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Sr. Presidente, el proyecto de ley que estoy introduciendo hoy es el primer paso de progresion en corregir una injusticia del antiguo que ha manchado la conciencia de la historia de Nuevo Mejico. Es una injusticia que se remonta al tiempo en que Jefferson Davis, Daniel Webster, y Sam Houston andaban en los pasillos del Capitol como senadores. En 1848, los Estados Unidos firmaron el Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo con Mejico. Con este tratado, los Estados Unidos adquirieron el territorio que ahora es California, Nevada, Arizona, Nuevo Mejico, Colorado, y Wyoming. [El Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo soluciono algunos problemas pero creo otros. No protegio adecuadamente los derechos civiles y de propiedad de la gente que vive en el territorio nuevamente anexado.] Este proyecto de ley es un pedazo de legislacion muy importante. Es la oportunidad de invertir la herencia de la mala voluntad entre la gente hispanica y el gobierno federal. Los descendientes hispanicos han estado esperando 150 anos para inducir al gobierno federal para mirar con justticia las concesiones de la tierra. Ratificamos un tratado con las provisiones de las garantias de los derechos de propiedad que, en retrospeccion, han resultado ser inadecuadas. John R. Van Ness describio el tratado como reparto enorme de las propiedades inmobiliarias, pero condujeron a los demandantes de la concesion de la tierra a creer que los derechos de propiedad serian honrados y protegidos. Algunos funcionarios con el gobierno federal, por otra parte, esperaban para obtener titulo claro a la mayoria de la pista que lo pagaba, sin importar el derecho de propiedad existente de los mejicanos. Los demandantes de la concesion de la tierra han aguantado a oficiales hostiles del gobierno. En una punta, el Presidente Cleveland designo Guillermo Andrew Sparks como el agrimensor general para Nuevo Mejico. Sparks han sido descrito por los historiadores segun lo ``empapado en prejudicar contra Nuevo Mejico, su gente, y los derechos de propiedad.'' Teniamos abogados corruptos y una confederacion de los oportunistas que utilizaron batallas legales largas para adquirir los imperios de tierra que extendieron muchos millones acres--todos a expensas de los hispanos. En 1891, el Agrimensor General fue substituido de la Corte de las Reclamaciones Privadas. La situacion fue de malo a peor porque los procedimientos de la corte favorecieron fuertemente el gobierno. El resultado fue injusticia. La Corte de Reclamaciones de Nuevo Mejico requirio que los demandantes prueben que el funcionario espanol o mejicano que concedio tenia la autoridad legal para publicar la concesion de la tierra. Por lo tanto, muchas concesiones de la tierra de Nuevo Mejico fueron llevadas a cabo sin ser legitimas. Consecuentemente, la Corte de Nuevo Mejico rechazo dos tercios de las reclamaciones presentadas. En ultima instancia, por una cuenta escrita por Richard Griswold del Castillo, solamente las concesiones del ochenta-y-dos recibieron la confirmacion del Congreso. Esto represento solamente seis por ciento del area total buscados de los demandantes. La Corte de las Reclamaciones Privadas de la Tierra agrando el dominio nacional del gobierno federal a expensas de los centenares de aldeas hispanicas, dejando una herencia amarga. Esta proyecto de ley se basa en la legislacion aprobada recientemente por Congressman Bill Redmond. Este es un pedazo de legislacion importante, y aplaudo Congressman Redmond. El vino a Washington, identifico rapidamente uno de los conflictos mas importantes y de muchos anos que sus componentes han tenido con el gobierno federal, y el tomo una accion decisiva--el aprobo una cuenta importante para comenzar el proceso de juzgar estas reclamaciones. Algunos miembros se jubilaron de 20- y 30 anos y nunca alcanzan el paso de legislacion importante, pero, Congressman Redmond consiguio la aprobacion de esta cuenta en la Casa de Representantes en su primer termino. La cuenta de Congressman Redmond crea a una Comision Presidencial para juzgar las concesiones de la tierra de la comunidad situadas en Nuevo Mejico. Se disena para beneficiar a descendientes de los ciudadanos mejicanos que colocaron en Nuevo Mejico antes del Tratado de Gudelupe-Hidalgo. El proposito de la legislacion es para determinarse que concesiones de la tierra de la comunidad se podrian reconstituir de la tierra tenida actualmente por el gobierno federal. La legislacion finalmente pone el espiritu del Tratado de Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Dije a Congressman Redmond que patrocinaria su proyecto en el Senado, y estoy introduciendo hoy el proyecto del companero. Estoy orgulloso hacer tan. He hecho muy pocos cambios y solamente un par de adiciones en la version de este proyecto que estoy introduciendo hoy. Los cambios se basan en las lecciones que he aprendido de hablar con los herederos de algunas de las concesiones de la tierra; de repasar la historia; y de hablar con los eruditos, historiadores, y los abogados de la concesion de la tierra. Deseo agradecer a Roberto Mondragon, Max Cordova, Estevan Arellano, Joyce Guerin, Georgia Roybal, Juan Sanchez, Pedro Gutierrez Jr., y Roberto Torrez por su ayuda inestimable. Tambien he pedido los caudillos de los Indios para repasar el bosquejo, y mientras que yo todavia no he recibido sus comentarios, quisiera que supieran que creo que sus asuntos son muy importantes, y miro adelante a trabajar con ellos. Primero, me parecia que el gobierno federal necesita tomar un papel afirmativo en la obtencion de la documentacion necesaria para probar la validez de las concesiones de la tierra de la comunidad. Desafortunadamente, muchos de los documentos de Nuevo Mejico fueron destruidos. Pero los eruditos me han dicho que los gobiernos mejicanos y espanoles tienen archivos siempre mejorando. Esta proyecto requiere a la secretaria del estado negociar un acuerdo con Mejico y Espana para el acceso a los documentos. Se parece especialmente apropiado que en 1998, cuando Nuevo Mejico celebra su 400o aniversario del primer establecimiento hispanico que nuestro gobierno comenzaria a negociar los acuerdos necesarios para estos documentos criticos e historicamente significativos. En la leyenda de las historias, me parecia que habia mucha ambiguedad en el tratado, y aun mas ambiguedad y discrecion en los estatutos que establecian el agrimensor general y la corte de las reclamaciones privadas de la tierra. Creo que la historia sostiene mi opinion que la ambiguedad trabaje al detrimento de los demandantes. Por lo tanto, propongo que antes de que la Comision comience su trabajo sobre el juicio de reclamaciones especificas, primero se convierte reglas claras y sucintas por lo tanto cada uno sea tratado con justicia. Esta legislacion requiere a la Comision presidencial ser formada y despues desarrollar un Codigo del Procedimiento de las Reclamaciones de la Tierra que seria repasado del Comite de la Energia para asegurarse de que todo es justicia. Cuando los documentos sean disponibles y se han explicado las reglas, la Comision serian listas para juzgar las reclamaciones de la tierra. Tratar de hacer la justicia 150 anos despues del hecho es complicado. Esta legislacion sostiene inofensivos a propietarios privados de tierra. Se cerciora de que las companias de titulo y los prestamistas sean satisfechos que esta legislacion no afectara al contrario la caracteristica privada. Se cerciora de que nuestro Ingeniero del Estado este satisfecho con los criterios usados a encargar de las demandas de la tierra sin trastornar nuestro sistema de los derechos del agua. Creo que podemos todos convenir que no deseamos que el gobierno federal interfiera con nuestro sistema de los derechos del agua! La legislacion requere a la Comision en su Codigo del Procedimiento de las Reclamaciones de la Tierra para tener una coleccion clara de reglas para lo que se pude hacer o no se puede hacer para los indios. Estoy confiado que este proyecto que tiene demasiado tiempo sin dar cuenta de la perdida de la tierra y de la negacion se resolvera sin crear nuevos problemas o injusticias. Gracias, Sr. presidente.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess on Tuesday from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. DOMENICI. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on or in relation to the Kennedy minimum wage amendment scheduled at approximately 2:20 p.m, the Feingold amendment, No. 3602, recur, and there be 10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment. I further ask that following that vote the Feingold amendment, No. 3565, recur, and there be 5 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. Further, that following that vote, the Reed amendment recur and there be 10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 22. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be waived, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1301, the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.