Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise with the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, which I will make at the end of my remarks, the remarks of my colleague from Missouri, and the remarks of my colleague from Arkansas. The unanimous consent request will be to take up and pass S. 1724, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001. This bill was reported by the Senate Finance Committee. This legislation, introduced by Senator Bond and Senator Breaux, would give States the option of covering pregnant women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program--the CHIP program--for the full range of pre and postpartum care. This legislation, which as I indicated, was passed by the Finance Committee, was passed by unanimous consent. It was included in S. 1016, which was the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001, which I introduced earlier with Senators Lugar, McCain, Corzine, Lincoln, Chafee, Miller, and Landrieu. It provides continuous health care for children throughout the first and the most fragile year of their life. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. is 21st in the world in infant mortality. We are 26th in the world in maternal mortality. For a nation as wealthy as ours, this is an unacceptable circumstance. The sad thing is that we know exactly how to fix this problem. Numerous studies over the years indicate that prenatal care reduces infant mortality and maternal mortality and reduces the number of low- birthweight babies. According to the American Medical Association: Babies born to women who do not receive prenatal care are 4 times more likely to die before their first birthday. Current law creates some unintended consequences that this bill tries to correct. Under the Children's Health Insurance Program, women under the age of 19--that is, until they complete their 18th year--are covered for pregnancy-related services, but once they reach the age of 19, they are no longer covered. This legislation will eliminate that problem by allowing States to cover pregnant women through CHIP, regardless of their age. This also eliminates the unfortunate separation between pregnant women and infants that has been created as a result of the CHIP program, as it currently is administered. This is, of course, contrary to longstanding Federal and medical policy through programs such as Medicaid and the WIC Program. There is a report by the Council of Economic Advisors entitled ``The First Three Years: Investments That Pay.'' That report states: Poor habits or inefficient health care during pregnancy can inhibit a child's growth, development, and well-being. Many of these effects last a lifetime. . . . The Washington Business Group on Health has found in its report entitled ``Business, Babies, and the Bottom Line'' that more than $6 in neonatal intensive care costs could be saved for every single dollar spent on prenatal care and low-birthweight babies. Furthermore, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality report has found that 4 of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to the care of infants with complications, such as respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen. All of these conditions can be improved--not totally eliminated but improved--through quality prenatal care. Some might argue this legislation is unnecessary because the administration is proceeding with a regulation that goes into effect today, in fact, to allow States to cover some prenatal care through CHIP by allowing the insurance of the unborn child. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the administration's plan to cover the fetus and not to cover women through pregnancy. Leaving the woman out of this equation is completely contrary to the clinical guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which say the woman and the unborn child need to be treated together. You cannot perform fetal surgery without thinking about the consequences for the mother. You cannot prescribe unlimited prescription drugs to a pregnant woman without considering the consequences to the development of the fetus. Moreover, if you only are covering the fetus, as this rule would, this eliminates important aspects of coverage for women during all the stages of birth; that is pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care. This is exactly what the administration rule proposes to do. According to today's published rule, pregnant women would not be covered during their pregnancy for cancer, medical emergencies, broken bones, or mental illness. Even lifesaving surgery for a mother would appear to be denied coverage. Further, during delivery, coverage for epidurals is a State option and is justified only if the health of the child is affected. On the other hand, anesthesia is covered for C-sections. The rule would wrongly push women and providers toward providing C-sections to ensure coverage. Finally, during the postpartum period, women would be denied all health coverage from the moment the child is born. Important care and treatment that includes, but is not limited to, the treatment for hemorrhage, infection, episiotomy repair, C-section repair, family planning counseling, treatment of complications after delivery, and postpartum depression would not be covered under the rule proposed by the administration. I repeat, our country ranks 26th in the world in maternal mortality. We need to do better than this. We can do better than this for our Nation's mothers. However, let there be no mistake, this bill is also about children's health. Senator Bond's bill is appropriately named the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act for a reason. We all know the importance of an infant's first year of life. Senator Bond's legislation, as amended by the Finance Committee, provides 12-month continuous coverage for children after they are born. Again, the United States ranks 21st in the world in infant mortality, and this provision will help solve that problem. In sharp contrast, the rule that has been issued today provides an option for 12 months continuous enrollment to States, but makes the time retroactive to the period in the womb. Therefore, if 9 months of pregnancy are covered, the child would lose coverage in the third month after birth. Potentially lost would be a number of important well-baby visits, immunizations, and access to the pediatric caregiver. This legislation, which was introduced by Senator Bond, has a large number of bipartisan cosponsors, including Senators Daschle and Lott. It should be passed into law as soon as possible. It did pass the Finance Committee unanimously. Finally, Secretary Thompson is in very strong support of the passage of S. 724, and he has said so publicly. Also in a letter to me that is dated April 12 of this year, he wrote: Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of medical care. These services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women. It is one of the most important investments we can make for the long-term good health of our Nation. . . .I also support legislation to expand CHIP to cover pregnant women. That is exactly what we have. In addition, Secretary Thompson was quoted in the Washington Post on September 28 as saying in relation to today's ``unborn child'' coverage rule: There is no abortion issue as far as I'm concerned. If this is the case, then we should pass this legislation immediately to ensure States have the option of covering pregnant women with the full range of care. It is a much simpler and better way to go, both for the health of mothers and the health of children. It is also free from the very real problem in this Congress of abortion politics. Once again, this legislation has strong bipartisan support. I will, after my colleagues speak, ask to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Thompson be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the increasingly serious problem of unemployment in the United States, in particular the number of workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are still unable to find work. According to the latest data from the Department of Labor, the adjusted unemployment rate in the United States is now 5.7 percent, with over 8.1 million, 8.1 million, workers now unemployed. 1.4 million other workers who want work but cannot find it are not included in this total because they had not looked for work in the four weeks before the survey was completed. In my State of New Mexico, we are doing much, much worse than this. Our adjusted unemployment rate is 6.3 percent, which puts us at number nine in the Nation in terms of the worst unemployment rate. Our unadjusted unemployment rate is 6.6 percent. We have had an increase of 31.6 percent in initial unemployment insurance claims since July 2001, and an increase of 33.4 percent in continued unemployment insurance claims in that same timeframe. The bottom line in my State and across the Nation is that jobs are being lost, and there are no new jobs being created that workers can apply for. Even worse, the workers that have not been able to find work now face an additional crisis, that being that they have been on unemployment insurance for as long as allowed and will soon no longer be eligible for new benefits. According to the Department of Labor, by the end of August over 1.1 million workers have exhausted the extended unemployment insurance benefits provided by the stimulus legislation and now have no funding at all available to them. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, this number will rise to over 2.2 million by the end of 2002. The number of workers who exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits in August 2002 was 46 percent higher than the number of who exhausted such benefits in August 2001. The number who exhausted their regular unemployment benefits in the first six months of 2002 is 75 percent greater than the number who exhausted these benefits in the first eight months of 2001, and is more than double the number who exhausted these benefits during the same months of 2000. For workers in New Mexico and across the Nation, these data are truly frightening. And in spite of these data, the comments we keep hearing from the administration is that we are on the verge of a recovery, or we have a strong foundation for a recovery, or the recovery is just around the corner. But I see no evidence of this. Investment in new research and development is falling. Investment in new equipment is flat. Production is falling. Lay-offs are rising. From what I can tell the economy stalled, and I have seen no evidence at all that the administration knows what to do. Even worse, from what I can tell there is a complete lack of concern in the administration about where the economy is going right now. Nothing is being said about what should be done or when it should be done. Given this lack of response by the administration, I say it is time we in Congress act. The Emergency Unemployment Insurance Act of 2002 is a very positive step in this direction. Its purpose is very straightforward: it will revise and extend the temporary unemployment program to provide an additional 20 weeks of temporary extended benefits for ``high unemployment'' States, States like New Mexico, and an additional 13 weeks to all other states until June 2003. As a practical matter, this means workers can continue to get unemployment insurance benefits while they continue to search for work. In my view it is the least we can do for these folks. Unemployment insurance offers at most a subsistence-level existence, and most workers who receive benefits are forced to choose between paying for education, health care, mortgages, and food. These are folks that have played by the rules over the years and now find themselves in hard times. Personally, I would prefer that we offer them more, but if we cannot, then it seems to me we should be able to offer them some minimal financial security when they need it the most. So I want to add my voice to the others today and say that we must pass this legislation before we go out on recess. American workers deserve to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner, especially in this time of need. They need a lifeline, and its up to us to provide it. I recognize that there are a number of important issues that we have to address in a very short timeframe. But from where I sit, this is a priority. The administration can talk all it wants about how the economy is going to improve, but what matters to the folks in my home state is whether they can find good jobs and keep them. Right now, they can't do that. We need to give them some help until they can. This is one step in that direction.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment of the Senate's time to particularly acknowledge the presence of our guest Chaplain, Gerald Kane, who is the Rabbi of Temple Beth-El in Las Cruces, NM. Rabbi Kane was ordained first in Cincinnati in 1970 at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. He has served pulpits in Portland, OR, New Orleans, Phoenix, and in Kansas City, before coming to Las Cruces some 3 years ago. Las Cruces is the second largest city in my home State of New Mexico, a very vibrant, growing metropolitan area. It is one of only five communities in New Mexico that has a synagogue. It has the third synagogue that was built in our State. Our Jewish community has always had a special role in the life of Las Cruces. Three of the mayors of that city have been of the Jewish faith. Following the September 11 attacks, Rabbi Kane, together with other religious leaders in Las Cruces, issued a statement of unity and support at the Las Cruces Islamic Center. He has coordinated clergy participation in this year following 9/11, and has worked very hard to bring the community together in that regard. We are very proud that he is here. In talking with him this morning, we were at a loss to think when we last had a clergyman from New Mexico as our guest Chaplain in the Senate. But it is entirely appropriate that we do today. I am very honored that Rabbi Kane was able to be with us. Also, I wish to acknowledge the presence of his wife Cyrille, who is here with him. They have four children and nine grandchildren. Let me also acknowledge the very good work of one of the staff people who works with me, Jeff Steinborn, who works in our Las Cruces office and who helped make the arrangements today for Rabbi Kane to be here.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM, as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989, and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos had his chambers in the courthouse in Santa Fe for over 22 years. He was also the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and in renovating the courthouse there. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was not only a great man, but also a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM, as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989, and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos had his chambers in the courthouse in Santa Fe for over 22 years. He was also the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and in renovating the courthouse there. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was not only a great man, but also a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today to congratulate the staff and supporters of Guadalupe Mountains National Park as we mark the 30th anniversary of this great natural treasure. Thirty years ago, the National Park Service established the Guadalupe Mountains National Park along the southeastern border of New Mexico and west Texas. Guadalupe Mountains National Park treasures and protects desert lowlands, canyons, and a relic forest of pines and firs. It also includes one of the world's greatest examples of a non-coral fossil reef. In addition, the rich cultural history and economic opportunities it provides to the region is part of the park's significance. Throughout my time in the Senate I have worked to protect our natural, cultural, and historical resources. The Guadalupe Mountains National Park is a prime example of the natural beauty of the Southwest. I hope this refuge will provide enjoyment for many future generations.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I want to address a growing disconnect that I detect between what I am hearing in my home State of New Mexico and much of what I am hearing and reading here in Washington, DC. Frankly, I begin to worry when we are talking about one thing in Washington while the people we represent at home are talking about other things, or talking about them in different ways--in coffee klatsches, in barber shops, in various settings. What do I mean by that? I mean in Washington in recent weeks the drumbeat has been about how we need to prepare for and pursue an attack on Iraq, and how the United Nations had better get its act together to pursue this effort in weeks rather than months or we would unilaterally act in its place. In my State, there is talk about Iraq. Frankly, there is a great deal of concern about what is being planned and what is being contemplated, on what timetable. But the main issue I hear from people in my State relates to the economy and what is happening in the economy. Why would the economy be a major issue in New Mexico, somebody might ask? One reason is the article that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal yesterday with a headline that says, ``New Mexico Tops U.S. for Poverty in 2001.'' It indicates the poverty rate for the U.S. was at 11.7 percent last year, and in my State it was 17.7 percent of our population living below the poverty line. The median income for the same period dropped over $700 between 2000 and 2001. Income levels fell for every group. This is according to the U.S. Census. This is not some group with an axe to grind. This was the U.S. Census that reported that income levels fell for every group except the very richest and the very poorest. So that is one reason people are concerned about the economy. Another reason is because of what is happening to their pension plans, to their 401(k)s. I heard a discussion a week or so ago where I thought one of the commentators made a very good point. He said there will be an October surprise this year. As we approach elections in this country there is always a concern on the part of people who watch the political comings and goings that there will be an October surprise; something will be done in October to try to change the outcome of the election. In fact, this commentator said there will be an October surprise, but the surprise will be when each person opens their quarterly report showing where their retirement savings now stand, where they stand in their 401(k). They will see a dramatic decline in the amount of retirement savings that they have because of what is happening in the economy. More and more people are worried that nobody in Washington--and this is what I begin to pick up in my State--there is a concern that no one in Washington seems concerned. No one seems concerned about the economy. There is no talk about any strategy to improve the economy. There is no plan to improve the economy. To hear the pronouncements that have come out of the administration in recent weeks and months, you would think the economy is just fine, that everything is humming right along. At least we are no longer hearing from the Secretary of Treasury and others that we are on the cusp of a rebound in the economy. That talk has faded. But certainly there is no talk about any plan or any suggestion about how we are going to strengthen the U.S. economy. And the fact that we are not talking about it is of concern. It is possible I am just reading the wrong newspapers, watching the wrong TV reports. Maybe there is something being planned. Maybe there is some strategy that is being developed in the administration. I have not seen it. I hope there is. My strong belief, though, is that the administration's basic position on the economy is: Stay the course. The problem with staying the course is this is not a very good course for the average American. It is not a very good course for the average person in my State. So I hope we will begin to hear something here in Washington about this issue which is dominating the discussion in my home State. Let me also say something about this threatened war in Iraq. Obviously, Americans want to deal with any imminent threat to our Nation's security. I think much more so are we ready to do that after the catastrophe of 9/11. If weapons of mass destruction have been developed or are being developed with the intent to use those against us or against our allies, then that is a threat that requires us to act. I think there is general agreement on it. We all share the goal of wanting to eliminate the threat of these weapons. But the question we need to debate is the means for accomplishing the goal. So far the means that the administration has insisted upon and put forward is a so-called regime change. That is the means. We are going to pursue a regime change. That is an interesting phrase. That is a euphemism for attacking Iraq, killing or capturing Saddam Hussein and his cadre of leaders, and replacing them with the leadership of our choice. There are some potential problems with pursuing that particular means to deal with these weapons of mass destruction. Let me just mention a few of those problems which have been discussed by others but need to be discussed even more. One is what is the precedent we are setting? This is not a normal course for our country to pursue, attacking and invading another country without some imminent threat being demonstrated. Second, the implications: What are the implications of such action for our relations with other Arab countries? Third, what is the cost to us in resources? One figure we heard from the administration was $100 billion. What is the cost? What is the cost in American lives we must anticipate? The question is, who would constitute the successor government if we are going to displace this government and put in place a government more to our liking; who would that be? The questions of how large and how prolonged a commitment do the American people want to make to the rebuilding of Iraq, to bringing reforms to Iraq, the effect of such an attack on world oil markets and the price of oil, the spikes in the price of oil that might occur and what that might do to our own economy, are legitimate. They are questions people in my State are concerned about and they are questions we need to have fully considered in Washington. We need to look at other possible means besides just the simple approach of regime change. One set of ideas that has been put forward recently, that I think deserves attention and I want to just call it to the attention of my colleagues today, is a paper prepared by Jessica Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, entitled, ``A New Approach, Coercive Inspections.'' This is a serious proposal and one that deserves serious attention. Essentially, the idea is that if our primary goal is to deal with weapons of mass destruction and the threat that those weapons pose when held by Iraq, then we need to consider, perhaps, a middle ground between the unacceptable status quo, which none of us like, and this idea of full-scale invasion of Iraq in order to change the regime. It proposes a third approach. It proposes a new regime of coercive international inspections where we would have a multinational military force created by the Security Council, which we would participate in, and which would be there to ensure that inspections take place as the U.N. has indicated they would. There would be several advantages if we were able to pursue that kind of option. It would have the advantage of assuring our allies that we want to work with them and not go it alone. It would assure the world that our priority is what we say it is, and that is eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction, not just evening old scores with Saddam Hussein. It avoids military conflict, if the goal of weapons inspection and weapons destruction can be achieved without military conflict. It reserves the option of force being used. Frankly, pursuing a course such as this on Iraq would allow us to tone down the saber rattling, to calm anxieties here at home and in the world community. I think there is a great benefit that can be achieved from that, not only in our relations with our allies but I believe the economy also would benefit from believing we are pursuing a more measured course such as is described in this paper. This is not the only proposal for how we should proceed. Maybe it is not the best, but it is certainly a serious proposal and one we should consider before we rush to authorize the President to use any and all force to bring justice and peace to that region of the world. In conclusion, people in my State want to know what is going to happen on the economy, what this Government is going to do to help them pursue a better life and have greater economic opportunity in the future. They also, with regard to Iraq, expect us to think before we act. They hope--I hope--this President and this administration are not so committed to a single course of action that serious discussion and serious consideration of proposals such as this are precluded. Mr. President, I appreciate the time and I yield the floor. I ask unanimous consent the paper to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, three score and 10 years ago our colleague, Strom Thurmond, first won elective office when he was chosen to serve in the South Carolina House of Representatives. He has been figure of influence in--and on behalf of--his home State ever since. The longest-serving Senator in the history of this body, he will be retiring at the end of this Congress, and today we have the opportunity to recount our own experiences with this American legend. Senator Thurmond had been in the Senate 26 years when I arrived in 1983, a brand-new member of the Armed Services Committee. He never treated me as the neophyte, just-learning-the-ropes newcomer that I was. From the start, I was his colleague, and he was mine. His long history of work on national defense is based on his love of this country, and his own experiences on the battlefield. Somebody thought he was too old to be a paratrooper for the Normandy Landing. It is part of his extraordinary resume that he got an age exemption, and parachuted in on D-Day. There is no one quite like him. I have appreciated his friendship from my first day here, and, with my colleagues, will feel a great pang of loss when the new Congress opens in January and he will not take his seat as a Senator from South Carolina. I think all of us recall those lines from ``Hamlet'' when we think about our friend and his remarkable life. ``He was a man, take him for all in all/I ensure shall not look upon his like again.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will be jointly introduced by Representative Ciro Rodriguez tomorrow when the House of Representatives comes into session entitled the ``Hispanic Health Improvement Act of 2002.'' This bill builds upon legislation that Representative Rodriguez introduced in the last Congress and addresses the tremendous health disparities that confront the Hispanic community in our Nation. Even if you know the statistics, they remain shocking. Over one- third, or 35 percent of Hispanic adults lack health insurance. Despite the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, 27 percent of Latino children remain uninsured, which is sharp comparison to 9 percent of white, 18 percent of black and 17 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children. In testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier today on Hispanic health issues, Dr. Glenn Flores, chair of the Latino Consortium of the American Academy of Pediatrics Center for Child Health Research, added: Among uninsured poor children in the U.S., Latinos outnumber all other racial/ethnic groups, including whites: there are 1 million poor, uninsured Latino children, compared with 766,000 white, and 533,000 African-American poor, uninsured children. . . . Although 1999 marked the first time in many years that the proportion of uninsured Latino children actually decreased (from 30% to 27%), recent national data suggest that outreach efforts to enroll Latino children have largely been unsuccessful. A Kaiser Commission report found that only 26% of parents of eligible uninsured children said that they had ever talked to someone or received information about Medicaid enrollment, and 46% of Spanish-speaking parents were unsuccessful at enrolling their uninsured children in Medicaid because materials were unavailable in Spanish. In order to address the lack of health care coverage, the legislation would expand CHIP to cover pregnant women and parents of children enrolled in CHIP. The legislation provides $50 million in grants to community-based groups to improve outreach and enrollment of children in Medicaid and CHIP with the grants targeted to Hispanic communities. In addition, the bill eliminates a number of enrollment barriers within Medicaid. And finally, it provides States the option to enroll legal immigrant pregnant women and children in Medicaid or CHIP. This comes from legislation introduced by Senator Graham earlier in this Congress. In addition to poor coverage rates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, the Hispanic population has morbidity and mortality rates that more often than not exceed that of any other ethnic groups. For example, age-adjusted mortality rates for diabetes are over 50 percent higher among Hispanic persons than non- Hispanic whites. HIV infection rates are over 3 times those of non- Hispanic whites. Tuberculosis rates among Latino children are 13 times that of whites. The legislation addresses these problems in a number of ways. In the area of access and affordability, our bill requires an annual report to Congress on how federal programs are responding to improve the health status of Hispanic individuals with respect to diabetes, cancer, asthma, HIV infection, AIDS, substance abuse, and mental health. The bill provides $100 million for targeted diabetes prevention, education, school-based programs, and screening activities in the Hispanic community. In addition, the legislation specifically addresses the problems facing communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, a 2,000-mile stretch of land that contains 11 million people, 5 of the 7 poorest metropolitan statistical areas in the country, and disease rates in some areas that are extraordinary. If the region were a State, the border would rank 1st in the number of uninsured, last in terms of per capita income, and 1st in a number of diseases. As Dr. Francisco Cigarroa, president of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, noted in testimony at today's earlier hearing on Hispanic health, ``Germs respect no INS regulations. We truly must work with our neighbors to the South if we are to avoid a major influx of new conditions and diseases. It can be seen so clearly on a map. Just as there are 'rivers of commerce' there are 'rivers of infectious disease' and though they may start at the Border, they are eventually seen all the way to the northern Border that we share with Canada.'' In response, the bill provides $200 million to border communities to improve health services and infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border. The numbers I have cited thus far indicates what we do know. Almost as much of a concern is what we do not know with respect to the status of Hispanic health in this Nation. According to one study, only 22 percent of all articles published in major medical journals included non-English-speaking patients. The bill provides funding to do additional research and work on reducing health disparities in this Nation. Among the various provisions include efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of Hispanic health professionals and programs that support the training health professionals who can provide culturally competent and linguistically appropriate care. With respect to training more minority health professionals, Dr. Cigarroa said at today's hearing, ``We should do this because it is the smart thing to do. If we fail to take steps to address the gap between the health of the majority population and the health of the nation's rapidly growing minority populations, we are on a course leading to a collision. We are far too great a nation to allow this to happen.'' Representative Ciro Rodriguez, the forthcoming chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I have worked together on this legislation to respond to the challenge before us with regard to coverage, access, and health disparities entitled the ``Hispanic Health Improvement Act of 2002.'' While the legislation puts forth a number of initiatives to address what are disproportionately Hispanic problems, it must be noted that each section of the bill, including those to reduce the number of uninsured and to improve access to care, would improve the overall health of our entire Nation regardless of race or ethnicity. Over the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues to revise and improve upon this legislation for reintroduction in the 108th Congress. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. No, thank you.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I think it is an important issue for us to get resolved, but I think both proposals do the job with regard to the specific issue that the Senator has raised.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, I agree with him that it is an extremely important part of the issue, as to the thinning debate, what additional authority we provide to the Forest Service to accomplish thinning within watersheds. I have a proposal which I have shown to my colleague that I believe provides ample authority, particularly in the Santa Fe watershed, for them to do everything they would like to do there. I think the earlier proposal Senator Craig has will do that same thing, in fact do quite a bit more.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I agree entirely with the Senator from Nevada. It is very important to Senators on both sides of the aisle for the drought relief assistance to be made available in short order. I hope very much we can move ahead with that. We can also do this forest thinning issue. I am not suggesting we complete action on this bill absent completion on the forest thinning, but we can do separate amendments. Senator Craig can offer his amendment to the bill; I can offer my amendment to the bill. We can have a good debate. Hopefully, we can persuade the Senate on a proposal that makes good sense for everyone and gets the job done.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, yielding time. I will speak briefly about the forests and the fire-thinning proposals and the fire-risk reduction proposals pending in the Senate. One amendment Senator Craig proposed is an amendment to the Byrd amendment to the bill. That certainly is a worthy proposal, in many respects. I don't agree with all aspects of it. I have offered an alternative that I think makes more sense. I am glad to go into the detail. I have done that once in the Senate, and I am glad to do it again. Procedurally, people need to realize there is no reason we should be holding up action on this bill or on the Byrd amendment because of the issue of forest thinning. The forest-thinning proposal Senator Craig is offering can be offered as an amendment to the bill. My proposal can be offered as an amendment to the bill. We can get a good debate on those two proposals. I would hope we could come together around a single proposal. We have been working to do that. Either way, there is no reason going forward with the Byrd amendment should be in any way impeded by the need to resolve this forest-thinning issue. We can resolve the forest thinning issue on separate amendments and have the debate appropriate to that. I believe on the merits what I proposed is a better way to go as an amendment to an appropriations bill because it does not make major changes in the underlying law. It does not make major changes in the authority for Federal courts. For that reason, I hope when we do get to a vote on forest-thinning proposals I will have a chance to persuade my colleagues.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I did not read that.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will be jointly introduced by Representative Ciro Rodriguez tomorrow when the House of Representatives comes into session entitled the ``Hispanic Health Improvement Act of 2002.'' This bill builds upon legislation that Representative Rodriguez introduced in the last Congress and addresses the tremendous health disparities that confront the Hispanic community in our Nation. Even if you know the statistics, they remain shocking. Over one- third, or 35 percent of Hispanic adults lack health insurance. Despite the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, 27 percent of Latino children remain uninsured, which is sharp comparison to 9 percent of white, 18 percent of black and 17 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children. In testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier today on Hispanic health issues, Dr. Glenn Flores, chair of the Latino Consortium of the American Academy of Pediatrics Center for Child Health Research, added: Among uninsured poor children in the U.S., Latinos outnumber all other racial/ethnic groups, including whites: there are 1 million poor, uninsured Latino children, compared with 766,000 white, and 533,000 African-American poor, uninsured children. . . . Although 1999 marked the first time in many years that the proportion of uninsured Latino children actually decreased (from 30% to 27%), recent national data suggest that outreach efforts to enroll Latino children have largely been unsuccessful. A Kaiser Commission report found that only 26% of parents of eligible uninsured children said that they had ever talked to someone or received information about Medicaid enrollment, and 46% of Spanish-speaking parents were unsuccessful at enrolling their uninsured children in Medicaid because materials were unavailable in Spanish. In order to address the lack of health care coverage, the legislation would expand CHIP to cover pregnant women and parents of children enrolled in CHIP. The legislation provides $50 million in grants to community-based groups to improve outreach and enrollment of children in Medicaid and CHIP with the grants targeted to Hispanic communities. In addition, the bill eliminates a number of enrollment barriers within Medicaid. And finally, it provides States the option to enroll legal immigrant pregnant women and children in Medicaid or CHIP. This comes from legislation introduced by Senator Graham earlier in this Congress. In addition to poor coverage rates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, the Hispanic population has morbidity and mortality rates that more often than not exceed that of any other ethnic groups. For example, age-adjusted mortality rates for diabetes are over 50 percent higher among Hispanic persons than non- Hispanic whites. HIV infection rates are over 3 times those of non- Hispanic whites. Tuberculosis rates among Latino children are 13 times that of whites. The legislation addresses these problems in a number of ways. In the area of access and affordability, our bill requires an annual report to Congress on how federal programs are responding to improve the health status of Hispanic individuals with respect to diabetes, cancer, asthma, HIV infection, AIDS, substance abuse, and mental health. The bill provides $100 million for targeted diabetes prevention, education, school-based programs, and screening activities in the Hispanic community. In addition, the legislation specifically addresses the problems facing communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, a 2,000-mile stretch of land that contains 11 million people, 5 of the 7 poorest metropolitan statistical areas in the country, and disease rates in some areas that are extraordinary. If the region were a State, the border would rank 1st in the number of uninsured, last in terms of per capita income, and 1st in a number of diseases. As Dr. Francisco Cigarroa, president of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, noted in testimony at today's earlier hearing on Hispanic health, ``Germs respect no INS regulations. We truly must work with our neighbors to the South if we are to avoid a major influx of new conditions and diseases. It can be seen so clearly on a map. Just as there are 'rivers of commerce' there are 'rivers of infectious disease' and though they may start at the Border, they are eventually seen all the way to the northern Border that we share with Canada.'' In response, the bill provides $200 million to border communities to improve health services and infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border. The numbers I have cited thus far indicates what we do know. Almost as much of a concern is what we do not know with respect to the status of Hispanic health in this Nation. According to one study, only 22 percent of all articles published in major medical journals included non-English-speaking patients. The bill provides funding to do additional research and work on reducing health disparities in this Nation. Among the various provisions include efforts to improve the recruitment and retention of Hispanic health professionals and programs that support the training health professionals who can provide culturally competent and linguistically appropriate care. With respect to training more minority health professionals, Dr. Cigarroa said at today's hearing, ``We should do this because it is the smart thing to do. If we fail to take steps to address the gap between the health of the majority population and the health of the nation's rapidly growing minority populations, we are on a course leading to a collision. We are far too great a nation to allow this to happen.'' Representative Ciro Rodriguez, the forthcoming chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I have worked together on this legislation to respond to the challenge before us with regard to coverage, access, and health disparities entitled the ``Hispanic Health Improvement Act of 2002.'' While the legislation puts forth a number of initiatives to address what are disproportionately Hispanic problems, it must be noted that each section of the bill, including those to reduce the number of uninsured and to improve access to care, would improve the overall health of our entire Nation regardless of race or ethnicity. Over the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues to revise and improve upon this legislation for reintroduction in the 108th Congress. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. The IRR system doesn't just serve Indian communities, but also visitors, including tourists, recreational, commercial and industrial users of roads and transit throughout Indian country. For the tribes, transportation is an important contributor to economic development, self-determination, and employment for all Indian communities. This bill represents a very modest, but important step toward providing basic transportation services throughout Indian country. The proposals in my bill are similar to many of the recommendations presented by Chairwoman Robyn Burdette of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada at the August 8 hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In her testimony, Chairwoman Burdette specifically cited the need to remove the obligation limitation, increase funding for the IRR program, create new programs for transit and bridges, and increase funding for road maintenance in the Interior appropriations bill. All of these items are addressed in my bill. In addition, my bill parallels most of the recommendations in the recent White Paper prepared by the National Congress of American Indians' TEA-21 Reauthorization Task Force. I well appreciate that tribes in different regions of the country may have different views and proposals on how best to improve Indian transportation programs. I see my bill as just the first step in a yearlong process leading up to the reauthorization of the TEA-21. I do believe it is important that we start the process as soon as possible, and that is my goal in introducing this bill today. I hope that Chairman Inouye and Senator Campbell of the Committee on Indian Affairs will soon hold hearings on the reauthorization of the Indian Reservation Roads Program. I look forward to working with them an the other members of the committee on developing a consensus proposal that is fair to all tribes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce the Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2002. The goal of this legislation is to help provide safe and efficient transportation throughout Indian country. At the same time, this bill will help promote economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Alaska Natives. I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe and efficient transportation for all tribes. Indians pay the same Federal gasoline, tire, and other taxes, as all other Americans and are entitled to the same quality of transportation. This bill is a 6-year reauthorization and improvement of the Indian Reservation Roads program, which funds transportation programs for all tribes. Next year, Congress must reauthorize the IRR program, along with all other transportation programs in TEA- 21. I am introducing the bill today as a first step in that process. Congress has long recognized the importance of improving transportation and access to tribal lands. The Indian Reservation Roads Program was established in 1928, and in 1946 the BIA and the FHWA executed the first memorandum of agreement for joint administration of the program. Since 1982, funding for tribal transportation programs as been provided from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Major changes to the program were again made in 1998 as part of TEA-21. Today, the Indian Reservation Roads program serves more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages in 33 States. The IRR system comprises 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned roads and another 25,600 miles of State, county, and local government public roads. There are also 4,115 bridges on the IRR system, and one ferryboat operation, the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry in Washington State. Of the 25,700 miles of BIA and tribal roads on the IRR system, only about one quarter are paved. Only about 40 percent of the 25,600 miles of state, county, or local government IRR roads are paved. Together, over two-thirds of all IRR roads are unpaved. Many of these unpaved roads are not passable in bad weather. In addition, about 140 of the 753 bridges owned by the BIA are currently rated as deficient. Some of the roads on tribal lands resemble roads in third-world countries. In some cases, the roads are little more than wheel tracks. Even though the IRR system perhaps the most rudimentary of any transportation network in the country, over 2 billion vehicle miles are annually traveled on the system. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent assessment of the Nation's highways, bridges, and transit, only 34 percent of paved IRR roads are rated in good condition, 37 percent are rated only fair, and 29 percent are rated poor. Of course, these ratings apply only to the paved roads on the IRR system, not the 33,000 miles of dirt and gravel roads. The poor road quality also has a serious impact on highway safety. According to FHWA, the highway fatality rate on Indian Reservation Roads is four times above the national average. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death among young American Indians. Reflecting the current poor state of roads throughout the Indian country, FHWA now estimates the backlog of improvement needs for IRR roads at a whopping $6.8 billion dollars. This year, the authorized funding level for IRR is $275 million from the highway trust fund. As required in TEA-21, the BIA distributes highway funding to federally recognized tribes each year using a relative need formula. This formula reflects the cost to improve eligible roads, road usage, and population of each tribe. Some modifications to the formula are currently being made as part of a negotiated rule making. I hope all Senators recognize the broad scope of the IRR program and its impact on 33 of the 50 States. I'd like to read a list of the fiscal year 2002 distribution of IRR funding in the States that have tribal roads and ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. The IRR system doesn't just serve Indian communities, but also visitors, including tourists, recreational, commercial and industrial users of roads and transit throughout Indian country. For the tribes, transportation is an important contributor to economic development, self-determination, and employment for all Indian communities. This bill represents a very modest, but important step toward providing basic transportation services throughout Indian country. The proposals in my bill are similar to many of the recommendations presented by Chairwoman Robyn Burdette of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada at the August 8 hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In her testimony, Chairwoman Burdette specifically cited the need to remove the obligation limitation, increase funding for the IRR program, create new programs for transit and bridges, and increase funding for road maintenance in the Interior appropriations bill. All of these items are addressed in my bill. In addition, my bill parallels most of the recommendations in the recent White Paper prepared by the National Congress of American Indians' TEA-21 Reauthorization Task Force. I well appreciate that tribes in different regions of the country may have different views and proposals on how best to improve Indian transportation programs. I see my bill as just the first step in a yearlong process leading up to the reauthorization of the TEA-21. I do believe it is important that we start the process as soon as possible, and that is my goal in introducing this bill today. I hope that Chairman Inouye and Senator Campbell of the Committee on Indian Affairs will soon hold hearings on the reauthorization of the Indian Reservation Roads Program. I look forward to working with them an the other members of the committee on developing a consensus proposal that is fair to all tribes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce the Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2002. The goal of this legislation is to help provide safe and efficient transportation throughout Indian country. At the same time, this bill will help promote economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Alaska Natives. I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe and efficient transportation for all tribes. Indians pay the same Federal gasoline, tire, and other taxes, as all other Americans and are entitled to the same quality of transportation. This bill is a 6-year reauthorization and improvement of the Indian Reservation Roads program, which funds transportation programs for all tribes. Next year, Congress must reauthorize the IRR program, along with all other transportation programs in TEA- 21. I am introducing the bill today as a first step in that process. Congress has long recognized the importance of improving transportation and access to tribal lands. The Indian Reservation Roads Program was established in 1928, and in 1946 the BIA and the FHWA executed the first memorandum of agreement for joint administration of the program. Since 1982, funding for tribal transportation programs as been provided from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Major changes to the program were again made in 1998 as part of TEA-21. Today, the Indian Reservation Roads program serves more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages in 33 States. The IRR system comprises 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned roads and another 25,600 miles of State, county, and local government public roads. There are also 4,115 bridges on the IRR system, and one ferryboat operation, the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry in Washington State. Of the 25,700 miles of BIA and tribal roads on the IRR system, only about one quarter are paved. Only about 40 percent of the 25,600 miles of state, county, or local government IRR roads are paved. Together, over two-thirds of all IRR roads are unpaved. Many of these unpaved roads are not passable in bad weather. In addition, about 140 of the 753 bridges owned by the BIA are currently rated as deficient. Some of the roads on tribal lands resemble roads in third-world countries. In some cases, the roads are little more than wheel tracks. Even though the IRR system perhaps the most rudimentary of any transportation network in the country, over 2 billion vehicle miles are annually traveled on the system. According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent assessment of the Nation's highways, bridges, and transit, only 34 percent of paved IRR roads are rated in good condition, 37 percent are rated only fair, and 29 percent are rated poor. Of course, these ratings apply only to the paved roads on the IRR system, not the 33,000 miles of dirt and gravel roads. The poor road quality also has a serious impact on highway safety. According to FHWA, the highway fatality rate on Indian Reservation Roads is four times above the national average. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death among young American Indians. Reflecting the current poor state of roads throughout the Indian country, FHWA now estimates the backlog of improvement needs for IRR roads at a whopping $6.8 billion dollars. This year, the authorized funding level for IRR is $275 million from the highway trust fund. As required in TEA-21, the BIA distributes highway funding to federally recognized tribes each year using a relative need formula. This formula reflects the cost to improve eligible roads, road usage, and population of each tribe. Some modifications to the formula are currently being made as part of a negotiated rule making. I hope all Senators recognize the broad scope of the IRR program and its impact on 33 of the 50 States. I'd like to read a list of the fiscal year 2002 distribution of IRR funding in the States that have tribal roads and ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will today offer an amendment to expedite forest thinning on our national forests and public lands. I am pleased that Senator Daschle is a cosponsor of this amendment. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me to craft this amendment and who offered invaluable input and expertise. Everyone in the Senate wants to do what we can to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire. We all agree that we need to accelerate fuels reduction activities because the risk of severe fire is so high. Ongoing, drought, past fire suppression policies, and excessive harvesting of timber have all contributed to the problem. All of us also agree that it is much better to devote limited resources to proactive efforts to reduce fire risk rather than paying to fight the fires once they occur. I have tried for years to improve the Federal agencies' forest thinning program in a variety of ways. I am also a vocal proponent for spending Federal dollars conducting proactive forest restoration to reduce fire risk rather than continuing to spend billions of dollars each year fighting fires. Although some may contend that restoration costs too much money, over the long-term, it is much less expensive than fighting fires. Restoring our lands is the preferred alternative for the environment as well because, unfortunately, important species habitat burns right along with the forests during a fire. The main obstacle constraining us from substantially increasing our proactive efforts to reduce fire risk is a lack of adequate funding. As Oregon Governor and cochair for the Western Governor Association's 10- Year Fire Plan John Kitzhaber states, ``it will take a significant investment of resources--far greater than what is envisioned to be saved through process efficiencies.'' Ever since Congress first funded the National Fire Plan 2 years ago, I have continually emphasized the need to sustain a commitment to the fiscal year 2001 funding levels over a long enough period of time to make a difference--at least 15 years. Most fuel reduction projects will take several years to implement. It is critical that the agencies have reliable funding to complete the projects they start. If funding is obtained to thin trees the first year, but not to complete the slash disposal and reintroduce fire through prescribed burning the following years, short-term fire risk will be increased. Around the villages north of Truchas, some villages face a tremendous danger of fire due to slash left from thinning. According to the agencies themselves, mechanical thinning comprises only 19 percent annually of all hazardous fuels reduction activities. Adequate funding means, at a minimum, sustaining fiscal year 2001 funding levels for all components of the National Fire Plan. The Western Governors Association recently sent a letter to Congress urging full funding of the National Fire Plan at the fiscal year 2001 funding levels. Similarly, recently the National Association of State Foresters compiled projected funding needs for the National Fire Plan over the next 10 years based on collaborative efforts with State governments, the Forest Service, and the Department of the Interior. The Western Governors' Association endorsed the State Foresters' projections. The General Accounting Office estimates that the cost to reduce fuels is about $725 million per year for the next 15 years, GAO/RCED-99-65. The funding levels in the bill we are currently considering are far below the State Foresters' and GAO's projected funding needs. For example, while hazardous fuels reduction was increased in fiscal year 2001 and has remained relatively constant since that time, the State Foresters' analysis includes $100 million more for hazardous fuels reduction than the Interior appropriation bill provides. The State Foresters project that hazardous fuels reduction also will need to steadily increase over the next 10 years. Other important programs that are part of the National Fire Plan, including economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance, and burned area restoration and rehabilitation have been drastically cut--and some have been zeroed out--by the administration over the last two budget cycles. For some accounts included under the National Fire Plan, but not all, Congress has made up the difference. However, it would certainly be much easier to fully fund the National Fire Plan with the administration's support. Funding constraints clearly affect the ground restoration work. In New Mexico, there are several restoration projects that could make a meaningful difference in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire if funds were available. Here are some examples: One, Dry Lakes Project, El Rito Ranger District, Carson National Forest.--This mechanical thinning and prescribed burning fuel reduction project is located on the Tusas Ridge to the southwest of the community of Tres Piedras. The ridge has an unusually high incidence of lightening strikes which put the community at high risk. Tres Piedras is on the State list of highest priority areas. The district used fiscal year 2001 funding from the National Fire Plan to thin a large area but could not find sufficient funds in fiscal year 2002 to complete the prescribed burning. This is particularly troubling because several forestry experts agree that thinning trees without follow up work to reintroduce fire with prescribed burns, the fire risk will increase. Two, in southern New Mexico, Otero County Commissioner Michael Nivison has worked tirelessly to encourage broad community involvement within the context of existing laws and procedures. Unfortunately, the group found that lack of funding was an obstacle to moving forward with sensible forest thinning plans. In April 2002, I requested the necessary additional funds from the Washington office of the Forest Service because no additional funding was available from the Lincoln National Forest's budget or the Southwest Region office budget. The minimum funding needed was $1 million to complete thinning projects within the wildland/urban interface in the Rio Penasco watershed and for watershed analyses to prepare future restoration projects. Fortunately, after waiting 3 months, the Forest Service complied with the request. However, Commissioner Nivison estimates an additional $4 million per year for the next 10 years above existing funding levels will be needed to successfully complete the forest thinning program on the Lincoln National Forest. Three, on the Gila National forest, the Catron County Citizens Group based in Glenwood is working to establish a sawmill to process small diameter wood removed from the forest as part of forest restoration projects and has secured non-Federal matching funds for their operation. In December 2001, I was notified that Forest Service employees had identified several restoration projects that were NEPA- ready, however, no funding was available. Once again, after specific and repeated requests, the Chief complied with the request to allocate an additional $1 million to the Gila. However, a 1-year special allocation clearly will not provide the long-term restoration investment needed. Four, earlier this year, the Chief told me that the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project is one of the highest priorities for the Forest Service's Southwest Region. Nonetheless, at the current rate of funding by the agency, the project will be completed in 18 years. If it were fully funded at $1 million per year, however, the project would be completed in 7 years. This is a critical project for the residents of Santa Fe to protect two city-owned reservoirs that hold 40 percent of the city's water supply. Five, Deer Lakes Fuel Break, Cuba Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest.--This fuel break project was put on the list of suggested projects for fiscal year 2001 since NEPA review was complete, but it was not funded in fiscal year 2001 or fiscal year 2002. The fuel break will protect private homes in a forested subdivision. The Forest Service considers this area to be a priority. Six, Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola National Forest.--A number of fuel reduction projects planned on this district have been held up by insufficient funding. All of these projects were small, less than 500 acres. Seven, the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program, created through legislation I sponsored two years ago, provides $5 million annually to fund a variety of forest restoration projects in many different locations in New Mexico. Unfortunately, due to the Forest Service's practice of borrowing from other accounts to pay for firefighting, action on this year's projects has been suspended since July 8. Because the administration was unwilling, until very recently, to support repaying these accounts, it is unlikely that work will resume this year on these projects. Beyond funding constraints, some allege that administrative appeals and lawsuits limit our ability to reduce fire risk across the country. I am willing to provide new legal authorities and exemptions from administrative appeals to address this concern. However, we should proceed carefully at this juncture and withhold from enacting sweeping changes to Federal law without due consideration. If we need to make permanent changes to existing laws, we should do so next year after this issue has been debated thoroughly in the Senate including hearings and committee business meetings. Let me briefly describe our amendment. We propose to exempt from National Environmental Policy Act analysis all forest thinning projects located in areas that are at the highest risk of fire and remove up to 250,000 broad feet of timber or 1 million board feet of salvage. We prohibit administrative appeals on these projects, thereby saving 135 days in the process. In addition, we eliminate judicial review granted under NEPA for thinning projects within 1/2 mile of any community structure or within certain key municipal watersheds. The combination of these provisions would save between one and one-half to three and one-half years of process. Moreover, in order to focus the agencies' work on the highest priority ares where human safety and property loss are the most serious, we require that 100 percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent in the highest fire risk areas, known as condition class 3, and 70 percent of those funds be spent within one-half mile of any community structure or within key municipal watersheds identified in forest plans. In order to recognize the role that forest dependent communities play in restoring our lands, we require that at least 10 percent of hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects that benefit small businesses that use hazardous fuels and are located in small, economically disadvantaged communities. Finally, in order to provide robust monitoring of these experimental new authorities, we require multiparty monitoring of a representative sampling of the projects. We agree with, and included, many provisions of Senator Craig's amendment in our amendment. For example, Senator Craig requires the secretaries to give highest priority to protecting communities, municipal watersheds, and areas affected by disease, insect activity, or wind throw. He requires that projects be consistent with applicable forest plans and that the Secretaries jointly develop a collaborative process to select projects. We agree with all of these provisions. However, our amendment differs from Senator Craig's amendment because we felt it was appropriate to enact parameters and limitations along with the new authorities for several reasons. First, we are legislating without the benefit of the normal authorizing Committee process. If, after consideration through the authorizing Committee process, we decide to make some or all of these changes permanent, we can do so next year. Second, the Forest Service has a poor track record with respect to supporting projects that do not harvest large trees. One example that I am aware of occurred in New Mexico. On the Gila National Forest Sheep Basin project, there was broad agreement within the local community that a project harvesting small trees would be a win-win. The community agreed this project would both benefit the environment and generate local jobs while also reducing fire risk. The Forest Service, however, rejected the community's proposal and insisted on following a plan to harvest large trees. Third, many independent analyses have discovered numerous flaws with the agencies' existing implementation of the National Fire Plan. For example, a recent General Accounting Office report severely chastised the agencies for their inability to account for where hazardous fuels reduction funds have been spent. Specifically, the GAO states: It is not possible to determine if the $796 million appropriate for hazardous fuels reduction in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 is targeted to the communities and other areas at highest risk of severe wildland fires.--GAO/RCED-02-259, January 2002. In addition, in November 2001, the Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture found that the Forest Service was inappropriately spending its burned area restoration funds to prepare commercial timber sales. Similarly, it was recently discovered that the Forest Service ``misplaced'' $215 million intended for wildland fire management due to an accounting error. Finally, another GAO report concluded that, because the Forest Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used the timber program to address the wildfire problem. GAO states: The difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards. Additionally, there are problems with the incentives in the fuel reduction program. Currently, managers are rewarded for the number of acres on which they reduce fuels, not for reducing fuels on the lands with the highest fire hazards. Becuase reducing fuels in ares with greater hazards is often more expensive--meaning that fewer acres can be completed with the same funding level-- managers have an incentive not to undertake efforts on such lands.--GAO/RCED-99-65. The parameters set forth in our amendment will ensure that the agencies conduct forest thinning in a way that truly reduces the threat of fire. For example, we require the agencies to focus on thinning projects that truly reduce the threat of fire, namely removing small diameter trees and brush. This limitation is based on numerous scientific research studies conducted by the Forest Service. Too often, the Forest Service has cut large trees because of their commercial value instead of removing small-diameter trees that tend to spread fire. Our amendment prohibits new road construction in inventoried roadless areas because the National Forests already contain 380,000 miles of road, as a comparison, the National Highway System contains 160,000 miles of roads, and the deferred maintenance needs on these existing roads totals more then $1 billion. Forest Service analysis reveals that roads increase the probability of accidental and intentional human- caused ignitions. A group of respected forest fire scientist recently wrote President Bush a letter stating that, ``thinning of overstory trees, likely building new roads, can often exacerbate the situation and damage forest health.'' Moreover, the vast majority of all trees in the west are small, more than 90 percent are 12 inches in diameter or smaller. Returning receipts to the Treasury is consistent with a provision in the Wyden/Craig County payments legislation enacted 2 years ago and avoids existing perverse incentives. Numerous GAO reports reveal that existing agency trust funds provide incentives for the agency to cut large trees because it gets to keep the revenue. Cutting large trees will not reduce fire risk, therefore, we should direct receipts back to the Treasury. Jeremy Fried, a Forest Service research specialist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, states, ``If you take just big trees, you do not reduce fire danger.'' The provision in our amendment stating that 70 percent of Hazardous Fuels Reduction Funds be spent within one-half mile of any community structure or within key municipal watersheds is more flexible than the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request which provides that the same percentage only be spent near communities. We in Congress must ensure that the agencies adhere to our direction that the number one priority is to protect communities at risk for catastrophic fire. To date, this has not occurred. In fiscal year 2002, only 39 percent of the areas where hazardous fuels will be treated are in the wildland/ urban interface. In fiscal year 2003, only 55 percent of the acres scheduled to be treated are near communities. Finally, we need hard and fast assurance that the agencies will make its investments near communities because the National Fire Plan and the Western Governors' Association identify protecting people as the number one priority. We are willing to provide the agencies with additional authority as set forth in our amendment but only to achieve the number of acres treated that can be accomplished without a substantial increase in funds. My amendment doubles the amount of acreage treated to reduce fire risk in the upcoming year form 2.5 million to 5 million acres whereas Senator Craig's amendment covers 10 million acres of Federal land. It is impossible for the agencies, even with the expedited procedures included in Senator Craig's amendment, to quadruple the amount of acres treated annually. Since fiscal year 2001, Congress has provided about $400 million annually for hazardous fuels reduction. With this level of funding, the agencies have treated approximately 2.5 million acres each year. For fiscal year 2003, the Senate Interior appropriations bill provides $414 million for hazardous fuels reduction, fully funding the Administration's request. Again, the agencies estimate they will complete treatment on about 2.5 million acres. Senator Craig's amendment does not provide any additional funds, therefore, it is incorrect to purport that now, suddenly, the agencies will quadruple the amounts of acres treated. Moreover, we do not need to treat every acre of land to reduce fire risk. New Mexicans and others living in the west want their government to quickly and intelligently address the excessive build-up of hazardous fuels. If we're going to leverage limited Government funds to solve this problem, we need to figure out in advance which forested lands need to be treated and how. To act quickly and strategically to prevent catastrophic fires, we do not need to treat every single acre of national forest and public lands. Instead, we should create firebreaks and other strategically thinned areas to stop fires from spreading out of control over large areas. A respected Forest Service researcher named Mark Finney has estimated that treatments need only address 20 percent of the landscape, if thinned areas are strategically placed to make fires move perpendicular to the prevailing winds. The Forest Service should experiment with Finney's ideas and those of others about how to most strategically place thinning projects. The less acres the Government needs to treat, the further our existing funds will stretch. The board feet levels in this amendment are identical to the levels previously set forth for categorical exclusions by the Forest Service. Almost 3 years ago, a Federal district court invalidated these categorical exclusions primarily because the agency literally lost its administrative record. Notably, the court left room for the agency to reinstate these categorical exclusions but for some reason the agency still has not done so. This approach also will benefit local businesses by requiring the agency to implement relatively smaller projects. Residents of Truchas, NM, tell me that the using categorical exclusions improves the ability of local Federal land managers to make site specific decisions that address community needs. At this point in time, I do not believe we need to expedite judicial review beyond what we offer in our amendment. Prohibiting any temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, which is what the Republican and administration proposals would do, makes any judicial review effectively irrelevant. In addition, on August 31, 2001, the General Accounting Office reported that, of the hazardous fuels reduction projects identified for implementation in fiscal year 2001, none had been litigated. In conclusion, our amendment represents a thoughtful, balanced approach to expedite forest thinning in a way that truly reduces fire risk for communities and the environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 2:15 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2623, to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, to provide for adequate school facilities in Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes; S. 2776, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 2788, to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota; S. 2880, to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other purposes; H.R. 3786, to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona; and H.R. 3858, to modify the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the Committee staff at (202) 224-9863.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of the events of September 11, 2001. It hardly seems that it was one year ago that New York City and Washington, D.C., awoke to an astonishingly sunny late summer day whose calmness belied the tragic events that would come that morning. While the passage of time has continued as it did before that day, our lives, our Nation, and the entire world have since been profoundly transformed. As that day unhinged one year ago, we all struggled to answer the questions that raced through our heads: ``Who is capable of such monstrous violence?'' ``Why would they do this to us?'' And like the families of the victims, many of us sat at the end of that long day and wondered: ``How do we go on from here?'' A deep sense of loss and uncertainty permeated the Nation in the weeks that followed the attacks. But in spite of the somber mood, we did what Americans do best. United as never before, we found our resolve to forge ahead. We found strength by turning to family and by turning to our neighbors. We rededicated ourselves to the civic responsibility that is the cornerstone of freedom. While memory remains scarred by the worst act of terrorism on American soil, the past year has been a time for healing. Today, we continue to heal by remembering those who lost their lives on September 11. We remember the men and women who worked at the World Trade Center, the military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon, the firefighters who did what they could to ease the tragedy, and the heroes of United Airlines Flight 93 who gave their lives to spare the Nation an even larger loss. Each day that passes will bring us a bit closer to becoming whole again. But we must all take time on this day to mourn those who lost their lives on September 11 and honor the heroes who saved so many lives. We must also keep in our thoughts the troops who are fighting overseas in defense of our nation. Today is about remembrance, but tomorrow is always about the future. Once again, we have to ask ourselves, ``How do we go on from here?'' And answer with certainty and strength. America will not be deterred by terrorism. Instead we will celebrate what it means to live as citizens of this country and honor our continued responsibility to advancing the freedoms that are the hallmark of this country.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.