Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the managers of the bill for their hard and tireless work on one of the most complicated pieces of legislation we will consider--second, perhaps, only to the Energy bill.

In this Senator's opinion, this bill, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, or SAFETEA, represents a tremendous step forward in the life of our country's transportation policy. While this is by no means a perfect bill and, quite frankly, I don't think such a thing exists, I believe this is a good bill. I am convinced that the Chairman and Ranking Member have put together a bill that treats our many States and varied interests as fairly as is possible.

With respect to my own State of New Mexico, this is a bill that will provide immeasurable economic benefit to our State. The most visible economic impact is on jobs. Thousands of New Mexicans will go to work as a direct result of this legislation. We have repeatedly been told that for every $1 billion spent on roads, more than 40,000 jobs are created. Over the 6-year span of this reauthorization, we will spend over $2 billion in the State of New Mexico. Quick math tells me that this will mean that over 80,000 jobs will be created in New Mexico alone in the next six years.

New Mexico is the fifth largest State geographically and has a predominantly rural population. This means that our population is very dependent on roads to keep us connected. Better roads will mean that people and goods will be able to move throughout our State in a safer, more efficient manner. Commerce will certainly benefit, bringing additional economic benefit to New Mexico.

Additionally, passage of SAFETEA will ensure that our State continues the improvements to our roads and rails begun under TEA-21. New Mexico roads will be safer for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Safer roads mean fewer accidents, fewer emergency road visits for victims of accidents, fewer lost days of work and productivity as a result of accidents. Aside from the much more important physical and emotional benefits, prevention of these accidents will bring on economic benefits as well.

While New Mexicans are primarily road-travelers, there is also a significant need for public transportation, both by bus and by rail. I am pleased with work done by the Banking Committee on the Transit portion of this transportation reauthorization bill. New Mexico will be a better place become of this portion of this bill.

Some of you know that I worked with the Native American leaders in New Mexico and throughout the country to create the Indian Reservation Roads program over 20 years ago. Each time we have reauthorized our transportation programs, I have worked to ensure that this program is taken care of. This year is no different. While the Environment and Public Works Committee was not able to accept all of my recommendations, or all of the Indian Affairs Committee's, I am pleased that the Chairmen and Ranking Members were willing to work with us to improve the program on the floor.

Now I know that the Statement of Administration Policy indicates that the President's advisors will recommend that he veto the bill if it remains at the current funding level. It is my great hope that we will be able to work with the White House and at the House of Representatives when this bill gets to Conference to find a way to provide adequate funding for our Nation's transportation needs. This country needs the certainty of a six-year reauthorization in order to plan for multi-year projects. I believe we are taking an imporant step toward providing that certainty today by sending this bill to a Conference Committee. I look forward to working with the Conferees to make this bill even better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a group of musicians from my home State of New Mexico. The group, Black Eagle, won a Grammy this past Sunday night.

The Black Eagle group is from the Pueblo of Jemez, which is one of the 19 Indian pueblos in our State. Those of us who reside in the Southwest are familiar with the pueblos and their people, but many are not. The pueblos share many common traditions, but they are distinct entities and maintain unique identities. The Jemez Pueblo, located in north central New Mexico, is home to the beautiful red mesas, rich culture, and some of the most wonderfully talented people around. Uniquely, the Pueblo of Jemez is the only remaining village of the Towa speaking pueblos. The Pueblo has long been known for its artistic talent and craft, but now its distinguished musicians can now add ``the Grammy winning'' declaration to their accolades.

The Black Eagle group formed in the late 1980s. The group's founder, Malcom Yepa, started the group when he was in his teens. With some urging, he, several friends, and several family members began composing songs in their native Towa language. Currently, the Black Eagle's are comprised of about 20 members from all across the age spectrum.

Prior to their Grammy for best Native American Music Album, their sixth album ``Flying Free,'' won the Best Pow Wow Album of the Year award at the 2003 Native American Music Awards held in Albuquerque this past November. Both awards are a remarkable tribute to their hard work, commitment, and determination.

In addition to being musicians, the group has often reiterated their dedication to their village and their ancient culture. Furthermore, their resolve to positively influence young people is most admirable. For that, and for all their accomplishments, I am proud, and I salute each and every one of them here in this Record. May their recent success be only a prelude to future accomplishments, and may they continue to represent their people and the state of New Mexico with distinction.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 26 at 2:30 p.m.. in 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Susan Johnson Grant, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Federal building in Roswell, NM, after my dear friend, Representative Joe Skeen. On December 7, 2003, Joe lost his valiant battle with Parkinson's Disease. He will be deeply missed.

I first met Joe more than 40 years ago when I was fresh out of law school and Joe was a rising star within the New Mexico Republican party. From that moment, I knew that Joe was destined for great things. To the great benefit of the people of the State of New Mexico and the Nation, Joe chose to dedicate his life to public service.

For those of us who knew Joe, it came as no surprise when he became only the third person in our Nation's history to win a U.S. House seat as a write-in candidate in 1980. During his 22 year tenure as New Mexico's representative for the 2nd Congressional District, Joe was a powerful voice for the people of his district and its rural lifestyle. For instance, he was a staunch defender of New Mexico's farming and ranching interests.

Many have described Joe as one of the most powerful members of Congress that New Mexico ever sent to Washington, DC. But Joe never forgot who he was and where he was from. He was part and parcel of this land and its people. Joe truly represented the people of the 2nd Congressional District, both politically and in spirit.

Joe sought committee assignments that would most benefit the largely rural district that he represented. During his time in the U.S. Congress, Joe served 17 years on the House Appropriations Committee, serving as Chairman of both the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

In 2002 Joe retired from Congress. After 11 terms in Congress, Joe decided to return to his ranch, a place that he described as being ``at the center of my upbringing and which shaped my character and principles in life.'' I feel truly blessed to have had the honor to

serve with Joe for those 22 years. I know Washington will go on without Joe, but it will not be nearly as good a place.

For all the good that Joe accomplished during his 22 years as a Congressman, I know he could not have done it alone. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Mary, his wife of 57 years. She and the Skeen children deserve great credit for making his life so remarkable.

Today I introduce legislation that would designate the Federal Building in Roswell, NM, the ``Joe Skeen Federal Building.'' I would like to thank my distinguished colleague Senator Jeff Bingaman for co- sponsoring this legislation. Additionally, Representatives Wilson, Pearce and Udall will introduce shortly a companion bill honoring Joe for his service to his State and Nation.

Joe was born in Roswell, NM, represented the people of the Second Congressional District for 22 years and spent his final days in Roswell, NM. It is fitting that the Roswell Federal Building bear his name. One of Joe's first actions after he took office in 1981 was to introduce legislation to name the Federal Building in Las Cruces after the man he replaced, the late Congressman Harold Runnels. I believe it's appropriate, 22 years later, to return the favor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to rename the Federal building in Roswell, NM, after my dear friend, Representative Joe Skeen. On December 7, 2003, Joe lost his valiant battle with Parkinson's Disease. He will be deeply missed.

I first met Joe more than 40 years ago when I was fresh out of law school and Joe was a rising star within the New Mexico Republican party. From that moment, I knew that Joe was destined for great things. To the great benefit of the people of the State of New Mexico and the Nation, Joe chose to dedicate his life to public service.

For those of us who knew Joe, it came as no surprise when he became only the third person in our Nation's history to win a U.S. House seat as a write-in candidate in 1980. During his 22 year tenure as New Mexico's representative for the 2nd Congressional District, Joe was a powerful voice for the people of his district and its rural lifestyle. For instance, he was a staunch defender of New Mexico's farming and ranching interests.

Many have described Joe as one of the most powerful members of Congress that New Mexico ever sent to Washington, DC. But Joe never forgot who he was and where he was from. He was part and parcel of this land and its people. Joe truly represented the people of the 2nd Congressional District, both politically and in spirit.

Joe sought committee assignments that would most benefit the largely rural district that he represented. During his time in the U.S. Congress, Joe served 17 years on the House Appropriations Committee, serving as Chairman of both the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

In 2002 Joe retired from Congress. After 11 terms in Congress, Joe decided to return to his ranch, a place that he described as being ``at the center of my upbringing and which shaped my character and principles in life.'' I feel truly blessed to have had the honor to

serve with Joe for those 22 years. I know Washington will go on without Joe, but it will not be nearly as good a place.

For all the good that Joe accomplished during his 22 years as a Congressman, I know he could not have done it alone. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Mary, his wife of 57 years. She and the Skeen children deserve great credit for making his life so remarkable.

Today I introduce legislation that would designate the Federal Building in Roswell, NM, the ``Joe Skeen Federal Building.'' I would like to thank my distinguished colleague Senator Jeff Bingaman for co- sponsoring this legislation. Additionally, Representatives Wilson, Pearce and Udall will introduce shortly a companion bill honoring Joe for his service to his State and Nation.

Joe was born in Roswell, NM, represented the people of the Second Congressional District for 22 years and spent his final days in Roswell, NM. It is fitting that the Roswell Federal Building bear his name. One of Joe's first actions after he took office in 1981 was to introduce legislation to name the Federal Building in Las Cruces after the man he replaced, the late Congressman Harold Runnels. I believe it's appropriate, 22 years later, to return the favor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that three hearings have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural resources to consider the President's proposed FY 2005 budget.

The Committee will hear testimony from the following:

1. The Department of Energy on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

2. The Department of the Interior on Thursday, February 12, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

3. The Forest Service on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m., in room SF-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

For further information on these hearings, please call Carole McGuire, Deputy Staff Director at (202) 224-0537; or Shane Perkins, Staff Assistant, (Department of Energy hearing) at 202-224-7555 or Meghan Beal, Staff Assistant, (Department of the Interior and Forest Service hearings) at (202) 224-7556.

Madam President, today, Thursday, January 22, I am necessarily absent because I am needed in New Mexico. Today, President George W. Bush is visiting Roswell, NM to address the pressing issue of terrorism. Not only do I have the pleasure of welcoming the President to my home State, but I also have the distinct honor of introducing him at his speech in Roswell.

Roswell is home to the International Law Enforcement Academy and a short

drive away is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia. These two outstanding facilities are playing critical roles in the ``War on Terrorism.''

Were I present today, I would vote ``yea'' on the Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R. 2673.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer who was entitled to go next. Before she got down here, we intervened and asked her if it would be possible I go ahead of her. So I will be next. We are trying not to break the commitment of one side and then the other side, but I will not be here if I cannot speak now. I am on my way to New Mexico to meet the President, ultimately in Roswell, NM.

Mr. President, I said yesterday to a large group of Senators that it is about time now to speak about the energy situation in America since we have a bill before the Senate that missed, in terms of filibuster, by two votes. That means that in normal times that bill would have passed handsomely.

What is happening around here, if you do not get your way, instead of voting on a bill, you threaten to filibuster. The American people have probably seen more 60-vote issues in the Senate in the last 5 years than in modern history. Almost every issue is turned into a 60-vote issue by a threat to filibuster. That was done on the Energy bill.

My friends, I can state what is happening but most of it is right in front of your face. We have the worst case scenario in much of the energy-consuming areas of the country, from the Rockies to New England, with the coldest 10- to 20-day period since the winters of 1977 and 1978. It was 14 degrees at my house this morning a block and a half from the Hart Building. Accuweather is predicting within 2 weeks we could have the coldest weather we have seen in 25 years.

Some people love the cold. Some people love the snow. But the point is America should not be brought to its knees economically and otherwise because we have a cold winter. We are looking at a point in time not too far down the line when the major sources of energy for Americans will be so expensive that the American people will wonder what happened.

I am stating what is happening: Three or four Senators will not let us pass an Energy bill. That is what is happening.

Yesterday, natural gas was over $6.50. To put that in perspective, when I first came to the Senate people--people can look at me and guess how long that was; some would say I look as if I have been here 100 years; some might say 15 years. I have been here 31 years. Ten years after I came here, we were talking about deregulating natural gas and the price of natural gas was 38 cents. Compare that to $6.50.

We can look around the world and see what is happening. The great big monster economy called China has decided they do not have enough energy for their growth. They cannot find a way to quench their thirst for oil. Nobody knew that. It just came upon us. China, the fastest growing economy in the world, has put the word out: Buy oil. And even more than that: Buy the oilfields. Go invest money with oil companies and start owning the oil in the world. The underlying theme is China's thirst for natural gas, as well as to fuel its industrial revolution.

Yesterday, China reported economic growth of 9.9 percent. When there are over a billion people--1.3 billion or 1.4 billion--and they finally decide to take on some aspects of capitalism, they are producing overwhelming amounts of goods and services for themselves and for the world. Whether their leaders call themselves Communists or not, they love dollars and they love to produce things and sell to the world. They are a huge problem. But China is not alone. The population and economic growth is creating a voracious new demand for energy and the world is following in our footsteps.

The bottom line is we are allowing ourselves to become increasingly dependent upon imported energy. We used to say ``imported oil.'' Now I can say ``imported energy'' because we are beginning to import, or will have to soon, natural gas, liquefied natural gas. We will have to buy that from overseas. And we ourselves will become dependent upon foreign natural gas just as we have grown dependent on oil but it will happen quicker and be more devastating.

Yesterday, unknown to most, a terrible event occurred with reference to the production of LNG, natural gas's substitute. A plant blew up in Algeria. Who would have been worried about it? Why would a Senator from New Mexico even have read about it 10 years ago? Well, we did not care about it because we did not use it. But a plant blew up. Forty-three people died, and all the production of LNG went out the window. Now, that is not our production. I should not be here crying about their losing it. But what I am telling you is, they are not producing LNG to give it away. They are producing it to sell and to sell to us.

The bottom line is, we are allowing ourselves to become dependent upon imported energy. The EIA predicts that 36 percent of all our energy will come from overseas by the year 2025; up from 26 percent in 2002. Just think of that.

I believe some of my colleagues who do not like the current Energy bill and who want to duck and hope the energy prices will come down are going to just wait and see. They will not be coming down; they are going to go up. And when the question is asked, what did we do about it, it is going to be easy for some of us. We are going to say there was a chance to pass a bill, and because of two Senators it did not pass. Two Senators decided they would not vote for cloture, so the Energy bill, which would have done a lot of things which I will quickly outline in a moment, was not passed.

First, let me tell you about a couple things that we hear about often that the bill does not have in it. The bill does not have a change in the CAFE standards on automobiles. Because of that, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished junior Senator from New Mexico, say this bill should have that in it and we have shirked our duty.

Let me say to all of you, what do you do when one House of the Congress does not want something? And what do you do when you cannot pass it in the Senate, you cannot pass CAFE standards in the Senate, and if you passed it in the Senate, the House will not take it? Let's talk it up. It might be something we ought to be doing, but you cannot do it. Does it mean we should quit, and it does not mean that is enough to kill a bill?

Secondly, MTBE liability. You all know what that is. It is in the bill because the House insisted upon it. Is it the end of the world? I do not think so. Is it enough to kill an energy bill? I doubt it.

A renewable portfolio standard means one group wants to not only give a wonderful tax credit to windmills and solar energy, but they want to mandate a percentage each State must produce. That is what these words mean: renewable portfolio standard. It is a mandate of a percent. Isn't that interesting? Every State does not have wind, but they are mandated to produce a percent of their energy from wind. Can you imagine what is going to happen administratively? They are going to have to buy credits or they are going to have to do something, because this law would do that.

Frankly, the Senate did not want it, and the House did not want it, but a few people said: We will not vote for the bill unless that is included. How do you put it in when over half the people in both bodies will not vote for it? Certainly, the House told us, in 30 seconds: Do not talk about a percentage, a mandate. We will never put it before the

House. We do not want it. That is the end of it.

Now, we all know ANWR is still hanging around, we all know the giant issue of offshore drilling is still hanging around, and they are not in this bill.

Like it or leave it, the bill represents the current consensus position of the Congress. If we were looking at 51 votes being necessary, which is what you usually need, this bill would be over with, the points of order would be done with, and we would be on our way to doing what it does.

I believe the deal before us is the only one that does enough, that can currently be reached. I do not believe it is possible to go back to the table and negotiate a different agreement. Why? Because whatever we bring to the floor will be debated ad nauseam.

The last time we tried to pass a bill to go to the House with, you all remember, there were 370-plus amendments pending up there at the desk when we struck a deal with the Democrats to take last year's bill. Remember that? That meant they were not very interested in helping us get a bill then. That is something I direct at a number of Democrats who might not have thought they were doing that, but that is what they did. Luckily, the minority leader said: Why don't you take last year's bill, and I told our leader, Bill Frist: Take it. I think they could not imagine we would take it. We took it and went to conference. And then, of course, we could negotiate around all the bills.

(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)

I know if we are going to be able to get 60 votes for this agreement--I do not know if we are going to be able to, but, frankly, there is part of me that is quite all right with that. As prices and imports rise, Members are going to begin to reconsider their position. They are going to begin to reconsider their opposition to domestic production. I believe at some point, if we do not take intervening steps, we will be forced to open ANWR.

I say to the occupant of the chair, which you have been advocating since the day you arrived, and for the many days you were in your State legislature, unless we get control of this situation, I think we will find ourselves confronted with that decision, sooner rather than later.

As much as we possibly can, without a new political consensus about energy, this bill addresses the following problems. This is a minimal list.

One, it makes regulation of the electricity grid predictable so new investment can flow into the transmission system. It is a huge part of our problem.

Two, it encourages massive new construction of windmills--60 gigawatts is expected, at a minimum, of new wind power, about 10 times the current amount. Why? Because this bill makes the production tax credit permanent. And listen up. It expired as of January 1. It is not there for those who are building windmills. They know it is gone. It is in this bill. It is there for biomass and a lot of other things.

Now it makes a new generation of clean coal possible through tax credits and research and development. As gas prices climb, we are going to burn more coal. I would like that to be as clean as possible, and this bill makes that possible.

It results in more domestic oil and gas production.

It will result in the construction of perhaps four nuclear powerplants. Some other things have to happen, but it opens the door.

Frankly, I believe that for this world crisis I have been talking about, of everybody wanting more energy, there are only a few ways to dampen the impact of that on the world. One of them is going to be new, modern, different nuclear powerplants. No doubt about it, that is going to be one of them. America led the way. We ought to continue leading the way.

This bill will result in encouraging the use of hybrid cars because there is a big tax credit for them. In fact, those companies that are exploring them believe they could never sell them without the credit provided in this bill.

It massively expands our use of domestically produced ethanol, meaning our farmers will be more in command of their future and their destiny than ever before.

Needless to say, bills do strange things. This bill is more for the farmers than anything else we have ever done. Everybody knows it. I asked yesterday in the presence of 30 Senators, those who have big farms and much corn production, would you tell me what the most important issue in your State is? Is it ethanol? Every farm State Senator in that room said it is the No. 1 issue in their States.

How many times have we taken the floor of this Senate since Senator Reid and I have been here, when Senators have come and said: We have to do this for all the farmers? It just happens that the farmers are in this bill. It is going to produce a substantial amount of gasoline because ethanol is an additive that will expand the use of gasoline immensely. So throw it away because you don't like some provision or you believe what many have been saying about this bill--that it has too much pork in it.

Well, I can tell you that if we have time available at another time, we will talk about the pork. I will tell you about one piece, and it has been written many times because one Senator used it on the floor twice. It has to do with a new plant that might be built in my State, which will be the construction of a new plant for highly enriched uranium. We only have one such company in America. Shameful. We used to have all that market. This company that exists now doesn't want a new one built. They have sent to Senators and newspapers around the country an unsigned document where they maliciously and erroneously talk about that plant. Some people have refused to use it, thank you, because they didn't sign it. Nobody signed it. But somebody used it on the floor of the Senate and said that New Mexico stood to gain $500 million to $700 million, and what a shame that such pork is in the bill.

That isn't even in the bill. Read it. It says anybody who wants to build a new plant of that type, two things will happen--it says anywhere, not just New Mexico. The license will be approved in 2 years and, second, if they want to make an agreement for the Federal Government to dispose of their waste, they can make one, and they will have to pay the Federal Government full price. What this company--which wants no competitor to be built--did was price out what you might have to pay the Government, and then said we are giving it to a State--a total unequivocal fabrication.

Many of the other so-called lard matters in this bill have been matters that have been around here for years for States that produce much of our oil and gas. They finally got a chance to have some equity done to them. When you finally get there and you have the best package you could ever put together, I don't know why we have Senators who find excuses. I think it is because they don't believe there is anything that can be laid to rest on their shoulders in terms of what they have done for this great country and what they have failed to do.

I actually believe that of all the things domestically that the President of the United States mentioned, and all the things we will be debating, there is nothing more important than what we do about our energy availability for future generations. It is No. 1 in my book. You have not heard much from me because, after working for months on it, I was shocked that I could not get 60 to vote to get around a filibuster. I believe sooner or later those who have done this to this bill will pay the piper politically. I say to our President: I believe you ought to be pushing this bill a lot harder.

Some worry about its cost. Let me tell you, the cost of this bill is infinitesimal compared to the cost to future generations of not producing natural gas from Alaska, leaving it up there instead of bringing it down here, and all the things like that which are in this bill. It is absolutely crazy. Costs, say some, are too much. If everything has to be paid for, and it goes the way it says, it is $1.6 billion a year. Do you know what that means? Americans spend $400 billion a year on energy. If that is going up 10 percent, when the rest of the domestic product is only growing at 2 percent, that would be an 8-percent differential. Just do the arithmetic. Eight percent times 400 is $32 billion a year in cost growth being put on the backs of hard- working Americans.

It is time we talk real sense about this. I will not let it go. But you all know there is only so much you can do and only so much of yourself that you can give to an issue. You have one thing growing up after another that people invent and argue about, and that same person just fails to want to argue about the validity of the entire bill. It is truly something that we would look at America and say we love democracy and we love to vote, but this is one that it sure would be good if some of these things could be done by the President of the United States. Not so. Can't be. We have to go do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with a heavy sense of sadness today, we mark the passing of former Congressman Joe Skeen from New Mexico.

On Sunday night, Joe Skeen lost his valiant battle with Parkinson's disease. Joe's passing is very hard for me to accept even though he had been ill for so long. We have lost a great friend to New Mexico. Joe fit his district like a hand in a glove, and that fact will define his legacy as a public servant and a man of the people. My heart goes out to Mary and the Skeen family. In visiting with them, I know their sadness and sense of loss is severe.

I 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 am 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 was the first to tell you that he had not done it on his own, however. He had a partner in his great adventure who walked beside him every step of the way. Mary, his wife of 57 years, was a calming influence in the storm that is the life of a Congressman. She made it possible for Joe to continue to be a ranching Representative, running the family ranch while Joe served in Washington.

Since Joe Skeen retired from Congress in 2002, I have missed working with him on behalf of New Mexico. We were partners in so many projects for more than three decades. I am from our State's largest city, Albuquerque, and Joe was a rancher from one of the many rural parts of our State. Our different backgrounds did not prevent us from working together; rather, I would characterize them as allowing us to form an even better partnership on behalf of New Mexico.

We first got to know each other in 1960 when I was fresh out of law school and Joe was an up and coming member of our party. A decade later, in 1970, we teamed up together to run for Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively. And, again in 1980, when Joe Skeen was first elected to Congress, we had the opportunity once again to work side-by-side. More than anything, Joe and I were able to use our respective positions on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to help New Mexico. He was always a good, solid and dependable man, and always a champion for his district. He certainly left huge shoes for those who follow him.

Today, my wife Nancy and I mourn. Joe is at rest, and our prayers are now with Mary, who has been such a force behind Joe and all his work.

Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me and letting me speak for a couple minutes.

I wish to thank one individual. We wonder from time to time about a bill of this magnitude. We want to be careful when we mention Senators we want to thank and are grateful toward. But I don't have any reluctance on this one, having been part of the process, having been part of our distinguished majority leader's life in the Senate before he was majority leader. There is no doubt in my mind when he came to the Senate and learned about Medicare, he made a commitment that he was going to be part of fixing it.

I watched this fantastic, talented man devote his energy and his enthusiasm, put the best people one can imagine around him, and I watched him lead the maneuvering, the activities, and the thinking, and I watched him learn the intricacies of this bill.

I believe if it is done right, history will have a lot of people we can thank for the Medicare modernization bill and the prescription drug bill for our seniors, but I think there will be one person who will stand out, and it will be the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader.

He has not been here very long. I remember when he arrived. He joined the Budget Committee, the committee that I chaired, and he was at the very end of the committee because he was the least senior of all members. He moved up gradually, and then all of a sudden we all recall what happened, and he became majority leader.

He carried into that majority leadership, on his shoulders, in his brain, and in his ability to make commitments, the idea that there has to be a way to modernize Medicare and provide prescription drugs.

I do not want to let this record on this day close without the Senator from New Mexico--who knows a little bit about this man, who served with him, worked with him, and understands him and is appreciative of the great talent he brought to the Senate when he joined us--thanking him and recognizing his particular involvement in getting this job done.

It just seems as if we go months and years without any good news, and then good news comes in bushels. Today we have a bushel of good news. We passed this bill that our seniors have been asking for. It is amazing, the AARP supports it, and then the other side of the aisle, the Democrats who used to just crave having the AARP on their side, because the AARP found a bill that the Democrats don't like--and I don't know whether they don't like it because it isn't theirs or it isn't good. I would say it is a tossup from what I can tell. Part of the Democrats don't think it is good, but part of them don't think it is good because it isn't theirs. They chose now even to blame the AARP; that there was something nefarious involved in the passage of this bill.

I hope the millions of people in the AARP understand what the Democrats are saying. They are truly accusing the AARP of having a conflict of interest that would cause them to support legislation that is not good for the senior citizens of America. That is it in a nutshell. It is an absolutely ludicrous accusation, but it has been done. It has been done because they saw the tide, and the tide was going in the direction they didn't like but the AARP liked.

Somehow or another, under the leadership of people such as Bill Frist, Republicans started coalescing around it. Because of the ability of people such as Chuck Grassley and our leader, Democrats joined in and we had some very exciting Democratic support. That is one great big basket of news sitting on the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to make a few observations for the Senate and for our people regarding the Energy bill that is still pending as we leave.

First, I hope and pray that during the ensuing months without an Energy bill we don't have high spikes in natural gas prices and the people of our country asking: What have we done about it? Our answer is nothing. I hope that doesn't happen. But I think there is a chance it will happen.

I hope there isn't another blackout. I am not sure there will be but there could be. If there is, the American people are going to ask why and we are going to tell them because we did nothing. There was something that was in that bill that would have solved the problem, according to the experts, and the answer will be, if you have a blackout, we did nothing.

For all of those who have projects that will be finished in wind, energy, solar energy, and renewables, they will be looking around and asking: Where is my next project? The answer will be there is no next project. The question will be: Why? And the answer will be because we haven't provided laws that will give to those kinds of projects the tax relief to which they are entitled and which they have been receiving that will keep wind energy going and solar energy going and geothermal energy going.

When these projects stop and thousands of people who are working in the industry have no jobs, when there are no new projects, the question will be asked: What happened? The answer will be simple. We didn't pass an Energy bill. I can go on with many more such as this.

In closing, I hope the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not act with the full power that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission now has. I hope the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will understand that we were that close to deciding we did not want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have the single and sole power to regulate electricity interests in this country.

But when the first electric-generating plants and generating systems are mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to join in organizations that they don't want to be in, and they ask the question why, the answer is going to be clear.

For those Senators who represent them who are upset because their utilities are being forced to conduct themselves in a manner that the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission determines singularly and solely, the question will be: How can they do that? My friend, Senator Craig from Idaho, knows how they can do that. That is their authority without an Energy bill.

We modified that significantly to take into account the differences in our energy system. That is gone. Between now and the time we get a chance to take another look at this bill, perhaps we will have a few of those mandates that will take place. Then people will ask: Why did that happen? I will say: Well, there was nothing we could do about it. The Senate chose not to pass the bill.

I acknowledge that the Senate worked its will at least temporarily in an interim decision, but I am hopeful that in the next couple of months as we watch things get worse in the energy field we will find a way to come back to this bill and pass it substantially as it is, and if some adjustment has to be made, that we will find ways to do that.

It isn't going to be easy. But neither has it ever been easy to pass an energy policy for this country. We have been looking for it, looking at it, staring at it, watching it evolve and doing nothing for many years. We passed a bill about 10 or 12 years ago. But it wasn't like this bill. It wasn't a dramatic change in the policy of our land in terms of energy production and energy efficiency and energy alternatives. Those are temporary--while the winter season hits. Those are out there with no action. They have a big NA after them--no action--or a big nothing done by Congress after each of those episodes that could occur and that will embarrass us because we didn't do our job.

I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator, Mr. Craig.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Idaho, Mr. Craig,

very much for his comments and his help on the bill thus far.

He made a great point about the future in terms of investment and the infrastructure. This bill would have encouraged that. That is just one item.

There is an ancient piece of legislation called PUCHA, and it would have been repealed. People have been saying it should have been repealed for decades. It makes it hard to get the kind of investment in this industry that most industries can get. We finally repealed it this year. It was stuck in the mud of an ancient bill. We are scared to let money get invested in utilities and utility investment in business.

Everywhere you looked there were things to be fixed. That is why it is a big bill.

There is an issue, Senator, regarding the MTBE, the substance approved by the United States Government as an oxidizer for gasoline. There is no question Senators brought issues with reference to it to the attention of the Senate. We have to take a look at that with the House because the Senate has many Members who are worried about that issue. We know we get no bill or we take that in conference.

I hope the House will look at that in January because when this bill dies, there is no protection for the producers of MTBE. When it dies, the hold harmless clause that we put in--and we can sit around a table and with enough time we can convince almost anyone that they are not so bad as some implied. That is a major issue that will have to be looked at. I thank the White House for helping us on that--or trying to help. There are those who think it is the most important issue around, and I have an empathy with them.

I call on them to apply their thought process in the next few months. The bill will die if we do not inject life into it. With it will go whatever protections the MTBE industry got in this bill. Maybe that is the way we can look at it when we come back and try to figure out a way to take a frontal attack on that issue. Who knows, there might be enough Senators who may want to take a look at that bill just on that point alone.

I close now by thanking Senators who worked very hard on the bill. It is as difficult an undertaking as you can have. I decided to do that after years on the budget, and it is much more difficult than writing the budget for the United States. We did it, but in a sense we are two votes short. The rule is it requires 50 votes for adoption, but we did not have enough for a filibuster, which would require 60.

So with that, I yield the floor and thank the Senate for listening.

Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator Burns. Does he wish to speak? I will tell him how long I will be.

I will only be a few moments.

Mr. President, economic growth is the lifeblood of this country. Economic growth is what gets rid of deficits. Economic growth is what provides jobs. Economic growth is what causes investments. Economic growth is what gives our people hope.

Today, the Government just released news that our economy grew by an amazing 8.2 percent last quarter, up from an earlier estimate in the same quarter of 7.2 percent. I recall when it went up 7.2 percent. We were all saying: Isn't that fantastic? The economy is really booming.

Well, it turns out there is always an adjustment, and they made the adjustment. Frequently, the adjustment is downward. In this case, the adjustment is upward, an astronomical 8.2 percent growth in the domestic product last quarter. This means solid growth this quarter and into next year. This is a tribute to the resilient American economy and to the fiscal policy pursued by the President and the Republican-led Congress.

The naysayers, principally on the other side of the aisle, have been the ones saying we should not have cut taxes. Taxes create deficits. On everything the President chose to ask us to do about the economy, the naysayers said no. Now they have been proven wrong and we have the second basket on the floor in the nature of great big positive news for the American people. Even more important to the future, confidence among the American consumers soared. They know when things are going well. It soared to almost 92 percent, a full 10 percent gain from last month. We remember when we were all worried because it was extremely low, into 60 percent, and the naysayers were saying: It is all President Bush's fault. Well, if that is the case--it is 92 percent now--is that not his fault? Or is that not to his credit? I would think so.

The kind of extraordinary growth I am talking about obviously cannot continue for years and years, perhaps not even for very many quarters, but it does mean that most estimates of growth for the year 2004 will prove to be pessimistic. They will prove to be too low. If we get a solid 3 and 3\1/2\ percent growth rate each of the next quarters for an entire fiscal year, then we will see Federal deficits also decline. Employment will increase and investments will improve.

The naysayers will be stuck. How will they answer all of these items of good news when employment starts coming down, which it already has but will come down more; when Federal deficits, instead of going up, which they run around talking about President Bush created, when everybody knows we have a huge expenditure for our military men and equipment because we have been in a series of war-like efforts from Somalia, Afghanistan, and now this one. Nothing can be done without spending a lot of money. But we are going to see the deficit come down if these growth numbers continue up.

Yes, we have all been worried about American business: Where is it going? First, we have to give American business some credit. I used the words ``resilient economy'' awhile ago. When there is a recession, American business takes action. They are not like us. They do not have all of the money to spend. They have to stop spending. They have to make changes.

They made changes. Guess what happened. Productivity went through the roof, and enormous productivity growth normally is accompanied by great GDP growth, and that has happened.

Now, it seems as if productivity growth is probably going to stop. They have taken about as much as they can out of their businesses, and now we are going to have the growth that will follow it, the job increases that will follow it, and the deficits that will diminish.

I close where I started, by saying it seems as if good news comes in bushels.

Good news comes not one thing at a time but two things and maybe three at a time, and the two pieces of great news are before us today. Let us hope there is more to come because, clearly, we are on the path upward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we approach the Thanksgiving Day holiday, we as Americans have much for which to be thankful. Around dinner tables this year, there will be added joy of loved ones returning home especially in the case for those families of members of our Armed Forces. Other homes may not be as joyful, as those who have chosen to defend their Nation are stationed abroad, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these scenes will occur in my home State,

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator in charge left the floor and said I could allocate some time to myself. I will not use much. I note the presence on the floor of the chairman of the Budget Committee. He wants to speak. Clearly, I want to speak for no more than 7 minutes. I ask that I be advised when I have spoken for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act will be 30 years old soon--30 years in existence. Many pundits never thought it would survive even 1 year. As a freshman Senator, I worked along with my colleagues to help bring about the act, and then I was honored by this body to serve as chairman for many years.

Let me say that the drafters of the Budget Act knew it was a bold and daring piece of legislation, setting up a whole new way of considering legislation in the Congress. As a matter of fact, I am not sure they even knew how bold it would be. It, indeed, in many respects, changed the way the Senate does business--some for the better, some not so much for the better.

There is one provision that is called reconciliation--a strange word--and people wonder what it means. Let me just tell you, without trying to take much time, that our distinguished leader had an opportunity to move this bill under what is called a reconciliation bill. Do you know what that would have done, Mr. President? That would have limited debate, and it would have made the bill almost not amendable and, indeed, besides that, there would be no points of order. He chose, as the bill progressed through, to do otherwise.

So let me repeat. The drafters recognized the need to provide waivers of points of order in this bill. The waivers are just as important as the points of order. They are not there just because points of order might cause so much damage that you need to waive them. They are there because points of order can be a range of things, and the points of order can be waived because the Budget Act says you can waive them, unless in fact they are important to fiscal responsibility or, in some way, violate the soundness of a Budget Act.

So let's be clear. The budget resolution before us, which we adopted back in the spring under the leadership of Senator Nickles, authorized spending over the next decade of $400 billion for reform of the Medicare Program with prescription drugs. Let me repeat. The fiscal dimensions are $400 billion. You would think if you are going to make a point of order about this bill being out of line budgetwise, somebody would be here saying it spends more than $400 billion, it breaks the budget, would you not?

Most logically, any Senator who says there is a point of order against this bill would say, well, we didn't think it spent more than was prescribed in the Budget Act. They are right, it didn't.

As a matter of fact, using technical rules of evaluation, it spent less than allowed. It spent $395 billion. You would almost think it should get an accolade instead of a point of order. It should get a bow, a ribbon instead of a point of order. It spent less than the Budget Act, and yet a Budget Act point of order is being raised against it. Let me explain.

I know that members of the committee and the leader himself tried their very best to keep this bill under $400 billion, and they succeeded. But you had to provide 10 years of estimates, the sum total of which could not exceed $400 billion. Are you with me, Mr. President? They had to produce a bill with 10 years of estimates, the sum total of which did not exceed $400 billion. The sum total of this bill is less than the Budget Committee gave them to spend. So it didn't break the budget.

One of the years--1 of the 10 years--they could not make the estimate for that year fit the estimate of the 10 years.

I will complete in 2 minutes.

The committee could not make this proposal fit in each piece of the 10 years. In other words, if you look along and keep adding up the years, it is $395 billion. But the committee also made some estimates by the year, and one of those years is $4 billion high--got it, $4 billion in an estimating bonanza of $400 billion.

First of all, everybody knows they are estimates, the best you can do. I have had to rely upon them and got accused that I shouldn't have relied upon them when I was the budget chairman, but we did. So there is one year that is $4 billion off in the estimating of 10 years. But every other year is within, which is truly remarkable, and the sum total is $395 billion.

Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, the truth is the Budget Act point of order should not be used for a frivolous matter--$4 billion off in 1 year with a $400 billion bill. It should not be used to cure technical matters--$4 billion in a 10-year bill of $400 billion. I am sure my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, will talk about some of the other technical issues regarding programs. But the biggest issue is fiscal soundness.

We have from time to time in a Budget Act authorized $300 billion for a program over 10 years, and I can tell you, many times a committee came back with a bill that was $300 billion, but for each of the 10 years it didn't fit the number.

This Senator, as chairman of the Budget Committee, wouldn't have dared to get up and say the bill should fail on a point of order because it violates the budget and, thus, the Budget Act should be used to kill it because they had done a great job and had met the total, but you can't, in estimating, make every year hit it right, right on the head.

I submit that a point of order should not be used. The leader's waiver of that provision should be sustained because we are using the Budget Act to try to kill a Medicare bill that is fiscally as sound as, if you are just talking about fiscal soundness, not substance--the points of order are not substance; they have to do with dollars--if you are just off 1 year out of 10 but not on the total of 10, you should not invoke the point of order. It should be waived as requested by the majority leader.

I thank the Senate for the 7 minutes. I yield the floor.

I note the presence of the chairman of the Budget Committee.