Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the contributions of a community, dedicated to the spirit of the Character Counts education movement, in its commemoration of the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on our Nation. The Nation as a whole this week took time to honor the victims, salute our military men and women fighting the war on terrorism, and reaffirm our faith and belief in our great Nation. New Mexico communities joined in this effort, not least among them our largest city, Albuquerque. I rise today to highlight Albuquerque's tribute because it fused the nearly decade-long effort to build character education into the day-to- day life of the city with the community's desire to commemorate September 11. This week, some 4,200 Albuquerque school children simultaneously released helium-filled balloons as part of a ``Character Counts Soaring Spirits Salute'' to commemorate September 11. This balloon launch gave the students a chance to honor the people who lost their lives in last year's terrorist attacks. But the Character Counts rally had a second purpose. We designed this balloon launch to lead into the celebration of National Character Week. Supporters of the Character Counts initiative hope this will become a yearly observance built around September 11, and the purpose of the week is to celebrate the acts of kindness and courage we see in our communities every single day. The Character Counts Soaring Spirits Salute involved some outstanding New Mexico community leaders and business owners who worked together to make this event happen, and serve as evidence of a community working together to improve itself by promoting the tenets of good character. I am proud to say these are people who routinely rally behind our youth. I believe some deserve to be singled out, including: the New Mexico State Fair; Excel Staffing Companies; MCI; Albuquerque Public Schools, (APS); KISS-FM; Public Service Company of New Mexico; Valley Distributing; Greg Cook Productions; Dave Garduno of Garduno's Restaurants; as well as the men and women of the 58th Special Operations Wing and the New Mexico National Guard of Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. A measure of gratitude is also owed to a number of individuals, including: Gabe Garcia and Chris Montano of Duranes Elementary School; Judi Preston of Video Wizard; Eric Hampleman of Simmons Media; Steve Stucker of KOB-TV; Bill Wood of KRQE-TV; Bruce Bortner and Ed O'Leary of the Albuquerque Character Counts Leadership Council; Carole Smith of APS; Terry Eisenbart of Southwest Airlines, who sponsored State Fair festivities for the day. I am very fortunate to represent a community like Albuquerque where I know we can always count on daily acts of Respect, Responsibility, Trustworthiness, Citizenship, Fairness and Caring. Those are the pillars of Character Counts, and it's why today I congratulate and I deeply thank my neighbors in New Mexico for their daily acts of kindness, courage, and character as we mark our progress as a nation and a united community a year after the terrible attacks on our Nation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, many of us will spend a good deal of this day reflecting on what happened one year ago in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. The images of horror, confusion and bravery that dominated our television screens last September will, once again, be refreshed in our minds. The raw emotion that we felt then will also be revisited. And, as is our nature, we will, again, try to rationalize why such tragedy befell our Nation. But this effort will be futile, because those who attacked us are filled with a hatred that is incomprehensible to American logic. Simply put, for us, life is a precious gift of God; to our enemy, it is utterly dispensable. So how can we constructively approach September 11, 2002? I believe that Americans can do three things today to accomplish a sense of healing. The first step focuses on our children. No group was scarred as much by the terrorist attacks as were they. Their innocent view of the world did not contemplate the kind of evil that was perpetrated on September 11, 2001. So for them, the images of crashing planes, burning buildings, and crying adults shattered their belief in a world that was good and safe. Not only were they frightened, they were also confused about why others wanted to hurt us. Today, many children may experience the same anxiety about terrorism that they did one year ago; let us recognize that and take a moment to reaffirm to them that they are loved, that they are protected, and that the good people in the world far outnumber the bad. Secondly, be a patriot. This can be accomplished in many ways. Flying the flag is the most recognized. But telling a service-veteran that you appreciate his or her sacrifice is equally valuable. The civic heroes of September 11th, firefighters and police officers, also deserve our recognition for selflessly responding to the needs of the country. And acts such as giving blood, helping a neighbor in need or giving to a charity are just as patriotic. All these acts have the effect of uniting us behind a common purpose and remind us that no enemy can weaken our moral fabric. Lastly, reflect back upon these words spoken by President Bush last September 20: ``We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the disruption and defeat of the global terror network.'' This bold commitment by the President signaled to all that the United States was entering a long struggle that would require our desire for action to be checked by patience. Patience, of course, remains necessary, but we have achieved much in our initial response to last year's attack. U.S. military action has unseated the Taliban government that once protected al-Qaida in Afghanistan, while terrorist training camps in that country have been rendered inoperable. At home, Congress and the President are working to establish a new Department of Homeland Security to enhance coordination of our government's anti-terror effort, both Chambers of Congress have passed the largest defense budgets in our Nation's history, and extraordinary effort has been made to improve air safety, intelligence gathering and counterterrorism methods. To be sure, our war on terror is just beginning, but we should remember that American action since last year's attack has been strong and has yielded positive results. Contemplating what happened to our country one year ago is difficult for all of us. It is difficult for the friends and family of flight attendant Al Marchand, a New Mexico native who was one of the victims aboard United Airlines flight 175. It is difficult for the urban rescue team that traveled from New Mexico to New York in hopes of finding survivors. But remembering those lost is a duty. Today, if we focus on our children, our communities and the progress we have made in the last year, we will honor the fallen as well as re-energize ourselves for the struggle ahead. Before I end, I want to make note of a poem I received from a young girl from Los Alamos, New Mexico. The title of the poem is ``Who Am I,'' and it reflects some of the very serious thoughts that the reality of terrorism has forced upon our young people, thoughts about humanity, and thoughts about whether peace can prevail. I ask unanimous consent to print this poem in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank Senator Craig. It is a privilege to work with him on this entire matter. He is the chief sponsor, and I am here to help him. I started working on it very late compared to Senator Craig. When I say ``it,'' I mean this issue, the terrible status of the American forests. Everyone in this Chamber, be they staffer or Senator, Democrat or Republican, has, over the last 3\1/2\ months, looked at their television in absolute awe, for they have seen hundreds of thousands of what seemed from a distance to be beautiful American forests that ought to be enjoyed by millions of people, owned by all Americans, burning up. Sometimes they move a little bit out of the forest and catch a house on fire. If they are burning in California, they burn a house, almost every time. We have fires in my State of New Mexico where they burn and no houses are affected, but the beautiful forest is burning to the ground. You heard the numbers. It is absolutely incredible. What we are told is that there are, within this great forest, 33 million acres that, if you went and looked at it, they are not so beautiful, they are not so great. If you drive through them for a few miles, you will probably ask the person you are riding with: Why are those trees still there? They may be stark, burned trees just standing straight up, black or dark brown from having been burned, but still standing up. If there is a big tree in the same forest--you may see a huge amount of acreage that has blown over. Nature knocked them over so they are not the beautiful forest that you think it is from a distance. Or if you go to two or three forests, you will also find that there are infected forests with various kinds of bugs, to use a common word-- insects that have eaten a forest away and what happens? It just stands. These dry, wooden trees just stand. Underneath all of this, or alongside of it all, are small trees that have fallen down, leaves that have piled up. In a nutshell, the forest is unattended and left, obviously, for years, with nobody doing what we all did many years ago. Nobody is cleaning it up; nobody is thinning it. So we have acreage in America where there are so many trees growing side by side that we were shown yesterday by one of our colleagues, who is helping with this bill, two pieces--a cut across a tree about this thick, about 14, 15 inches in diameter, and another one was this big, about 4\1/2\, 5 inches in diameter. But guess what. They can tell how old each one is. The little one is twice as old as the bigger one because of poor growing conditions, because they were all squashed up together, like you see American forests today. Instead of being separated, where the Sun can go down through and the forest can be happy--as we called a bill to clean up the forests last year, we named it the Happy Forest Act, hoping that we would start to clean up the forests. But we have not. The American people have now heard on the local news media and the national news media that, for some reason, the process of trying to clean up some of these trees--I am speaking now of those categories to which my friend Senator Larry Craig alluded--that almost anybody would say let's get those out of the forests. The process of cleaning it up has been held up by a procedure that gets almost every desired cleanup into a court of law, into a NEPA statement, regardless of how little or ineffective it is against the forest. In fact, the process got so bad that, while most of us were totally unable to get a change so we could do fix it, the distinguished majority leader saw it coming. Senator Daschle saw it coming in his State. He must have gone there and saw what we see. He saw it in his forest in the Black Hills. In other words, he saw some acreage where his constituents must have been showing him and saying: Senator, why do we have to leave that here? It is just a target that will burn our whole forest down. Why are you not able? Because environmental groups, which are particularly concerned--rightfully so--with the forests of America, won't let you take it up? So everyone should know that Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, and many other Western and Rocky Mountain Senators--hopefully, before we are finished we will be joined by many others--looked at the urgent supplemental that passed not long ago, and we noticed that the distinguished majority leader had put in language exempting fuels reduction projects on the Black Hills National Forest from NEPA appeals and litigation. So from a distance, we said, thank you, Mr. Majority leader, you really did for us what ought to be done--except that you only did it for your State. No criticism. That is fine. We say if it is good enough for the majority leader in his State, then it ought to be good enough for us. We have many, many times more acreage of this kind in our respective States--Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and I can go on. We have much, much more of that broken down, knocked over timber, burned but still standing, wind blown, bug-infested. We would like to have the same thing, or as close as we can, that Senator Daschle, quite correctly, gave to the citizens of his State. He did that a month and a half ago, or less, when we put amendments on an appropriations bill. Again, I have no objection to his having done that. I praised him because the time had come when NEPA had to be changed. We were all operating under a blanket that said you can't do that, no matter what. When we read this, we said, if you cannot do it, it has just been done because the distinguished majority leader did it for the Black Hills in his State. And now I walked, during the last 25 days in my State, into about six or eight meetings with cowboys and people who used to work in lumber mills, with people who have farms up alongside the forests; they are at meetings and all they want to know, why can't we clean forests so they won't burn down. Anybody coming to see Senator Domenici puts up his hand and he wants to know why can't New Mexico do what South Dakota can do. All we can do is say Senator Daschle is a fair man. He did this for his constituents. We believe when he sees what should be done for ours, he will be helpful. We do hope the amendment that we put down--the Craig-Domenici, et al--that many Senators will be on it. I have talked to Senators on the other side whose names have not yet been mentioned--even by Senator Larry Craig, the prime sponsor. I am talking to all of them now, Democrats and Republicans. We can put a bill together that will work in California, where there are many houses and they are very valuable and, therefore, you need to clean up around each of them--all the way over to New Mexico where you have very open spaces and some houses. But you have to make sure the cleanup is not going to just be around buildings and houses. Some of it will have to be in other open spaces where the forest itself will be the victim, not necessarily a house in the fire's way. So I urge that--as is the usual manner when we have a situation such as this--we not end up with one group calling the other group names-- that one is pro-environment, or that one is pro-forest. I submit that we have a big problem. Senator Daschle tried to solve it for his constituents. We have observed that carefully. We would like to solve it for our constituents. We do not believe the distinguished majority leader is going to say: I got it but you cannot have it. It is fair and it must be done. Our forests will burn down before we ever get to clean them up. Having said that, we worked very hard--not just Republicans, but a number of Democrats, and not just Republican staff, but a number of Democrat staff who know what they are talking about. We crafted this bill. We think from the standpoint of doing away with some of the litigation that environmentalists like to be in place so they think their interests are protected, we have left more court proceedings in our measure than the majority leader left in his. We have streamlined the process, no question about it. We have taken less of a proportion of the class III gambling acreage and put it in our bill. Senator Craig said, out of 33 million acres that are so polluted as we described, they are going to burn down and carry all kinds of other trees with them. Ten out of 33 is what we provide for in our bill. We are willing to say, if they cannot do 10, because they don't have the equipment or the time, it can be altered. We are also in favor of adding the new money that the President pledged, and that can go to this. If there needs to be more, we can talk about it on the floor of the Senate. I rose today not to speak of technicalities. We will do that. Our amendment is there and there are plenty of copies for the technicians to look at. In a nutshell, we have seen the forests of America and they are burning. We think over time we must have a new forest plan. I have heard my good friend, Senator Craig, speak of a new forest plan, a new horizon for maintenance and upkeep that will keep these forests beautiful. We also speak of preserving these forests where they are subject to being burned down because of our failure to maintain them. We want to go in, within the next 18 months, and do as much maintenance as we can. In the process, we are not interested in lumber. As soon as we decided we were going this way, 10 or 15 Senators got on television and we heard opposition: We do not want to do that, because they are all for big lumber. What we are for is saving our forests. We do not have any new lumber contract language, that I am aware of, in this bill. I am not an expert, but I see the experts saying that is true. We have provisions that will permit the managers within the Forest Service and the BLM to proceed to maximum cleanup, and to do it now. We do not have any new roadways, as I understand it. We do not have new roadways where there are none, because we are not interested in that; that is not our goal. So once again, I say to our friends, Democrats and Republicans, these are days when we seem to try to come together as Senators. We are not getting a lot done because 9/11 is hovering over us. But I do think it would permit us, also under that attitude we have generated of being more friendly and more congenial, to consider what those who oppose it say; we will consider it to be a legitimate objection, if the other side will consider what we propose to do as legitimate and let us explain it carefully. Let's see if we can get a bill so we can go home this year, whether we are running or whether we are just going home because it is our time to go home, and we can go to those meetings I described and say, Democrat and Republican, joined by our President, we put more money into cleaning up the forests that you live by, live in, work with, and recreate in; we put money to do some real fixing up; and we also have agreed we do not have to take so long to go from weighing that forest and saying it is one of those that ought to be cleaned up to getting it cleaned up. Should it take 5 years? Of course not. Should it take so long that everybody gives up? Of course not. We have provisions as to how fast it must go in terms of the events that occur in the courtrooms and other places. This is one chance to make some real changes. They will be temporary, but we will be able to look at them and say we can now continue to do them; the forests may come out clean in 10 or 15 years, not next week, not next month. I am hopeful our amendment, which obviously can be changed, will be looked at from the standpoint that we are not here to blame; we are not here to criticize; we are here to commend the distinguished majority leader for seeing that NEPA, the approach of the National Environmental Protection Act to cleaning up the forests, has to be modified in terms of its imposition of delay. We ought to be able to do that in writing, where it is easy for everybody to understand and will not destroy, will not cause our forests to be logged in some way that is not good for America. We hope the public can look openly at our work in the next 3 or 4 days. And we want it to be open. We have nothing to hide. We want to be able to say within the next 6 weeks, across the United States on the nightly news and the newscasts of the day, the bipartisan Senate has decided to fix up the forests before they burn down, clean them up before they are no more. That is essentially what our bill is all about. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the leader of the Senate if I may speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will maybe not even take that long.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the effects of a natural disaster that lingers across most of the West--drought. There is not a segment of the New Mexico population that will not be touched in some way, some form, or fashion by drought this year. People in other parts of the country have turned on their television sets over the past few weeks and have seen the blazes of catastrophic wildfires that are again devastating the western United states. This may be the only effect of the drought that many are aware of. Let me tell you, the devastation is even more profound. Ranchers, including ranchers on the Navajo Nation, are being forced to sell off livestock because they can't find enough water for them and can't afford the significant feed costs. Other agricultural businesses are being forced to shut their doors because the agriculture sector as a whole is hurting. But this is not just a problem for the agricultural community. Most of the national forests in New Mexico were closed to the public. This resulted in a decrease in tourism. Let me mention a couple of specific examples. First of all, there is a small railroad, the historic Cumbres and Toltec Railroad, that takes people through a very beautiful part of the State. The railroad contributes to the tourism and economic stability of a very poor part of the State. That railroad was forced to close because it was so close to the national forest system lands that the fear that the railroad might spark and start a wildfire is a threat too imminent to risk. A second example is the river rafting operations that have been forced to cease operations because of the drought conditions and lack of river flows. Municipal and private wells are running dry. In the City of Santa Fe, emergency wells for municipal water use are needed because Santa Fe's water storage is at 18 percent capacity, the spring runoff is only at 2 percent, and current wells are pumping 24 hours a day. The City of Santa Fe is at a Stage 3 water shortage emergency, which allows outdoor watering once a week, but the City Council is considering going to Stage 4, which would eliminate all outdoor watering. To put this in perspective, the last substantial rain for the area was in late January. Santa Fe is only one of the numerous municipalities that have imposed restrictions on water use. These restrictions are enforced by ``water police'' and that violators face steep fines ranging from $20 for a first offense to $200 for a fourth offense and stay at $200 for each repeat violation. While most livestock sales generally take place on the reservation during September and October, this year emergency sales were being held almost every weekend during July and August. Hundreds of cattle, horses and sheep have already died as a result of the severe drought conditions. The article goes on to describe the severity of the conditions. ``Stock ponds have gone dry, fish have died in evaporating lakes, and grass has disappeared. Sand blows across reservation roads, and the stiff bodies of dead cattle litter the land.'' The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more acute every single day. I reiterate that every single New Mexican will feel the impact of this drought in one way or another. whether they are selling off the essence of their livelihood--livestock, or losing daily revenues in other small businesses, or whether they are actually having to refrain from watering their own lawns and washing their cars, the drought and its devastation is very real. There is a need out west and I stand ready to do what I can. It will be a monumental and expensive challenge, but one we cannot avoid.

Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. I listened carefully to the remarks, but the Senator did not say the Congressional Budget Office told you that a waiver is not necessary for this bill in that it will require a budget waiver or it will fall. Is that not correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will only take a minute. I say to my good friend from Oregon, I thank him for his remarks. I am very hopeful that whenever we vote on this bill, the Senator will vote aye, because whatever it is the Senator thinks does not fit the bill in this amendment can be rectified. I also say that my mentioning of the distinguished majority leader was with praise, with congratulations, and stating that he showed us how. I did not say we have to do it the same way, but he did change the effect of NEPA for his State once and for all on these forests. I am very proud he did. I want to do something close to that when we do it. I do not want to close the gates of the courthouse. In fact, we did less of that in this than with other bills. I think the Senator knows that.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as we meet here just days from the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on our country, it is my sad duty to report that another of my statesmen has lost his life in the war on terror. Sergeant First Class Christopher James Speer, a former resident of Albuquerque, NM, died on August 7, 2002 as a result of wounds he sustained during a firefight with suspected terrorists in Afghanistan. Today, I want to take a few moments to convey my condolences to the Speer family, and to talk a little bit about who this special young man was. Christopher Speer was a 1992 graduate of Sandia High School in Albuquerque. Upon graduation, he enlisted in the United States Army and became a medical specialist. In 1994, he volunteered for and was selected for Special Forces training. After completing this training, he was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Airborne Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he served as a medical sergeant. Last spring, Christopher was sent to Afghanistan as part of a Joint Special Operations task force. On July 27th of this year, Christopher took part in a U.S. operation aimed at confirming intelligence about enemy activities in one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. During that operation, our troops were ambushed and a four-hour gunbattle ensued. During this battle, five American personnel were wounded, and one of them--Christopher Speer--lost his life. For his valor and ten years of dedicated service to country Christopher received the Soldier's Medal, the Bronze Star with ``V'' device, the Purple Heart, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal and two Army Achievement Medals. In addition to patriot, Christopher was very much a family man, as well. And for those family members who knew him best and loved him most, this September 9th will be especially difficult. Because on that day, Christopher was to have turned 29 years old. To Tabitha, his wife; to Taryn and Tanner, his children; and to Betty, his mother, Nancy and I sent heartfelt prayers on behalf of all New Mexicans as well as the appreciation of a grateful nation.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to remind my colleagues that an important milestone in our progress toward reducing the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction took place about 2 weeks ago. Events like September 11 would have been far worse if terrorists had access to weapons of mass destruction. Since September 11, appreciation of this threat has increased dramatically. Many of us have spoken on the need to rein in the forces of international terrorism and any possibility that they may gain the use of such weapons. The milestone to which I refer is the successful removal of enough weapons-grade uranium from the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences near Belgrade, Yugoslavia to make more than two nuclear bombs. This removal was accomplished through coordination among government and private groups, including contributions from Yugoslavia and Russia, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. I especially salute the contributions made by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, headed by Ted Turner and our former colleague Senator Sam Nunn. This episode represents another critical effort from the NTI. I'm very honored to serve on the Board of the NTI, along with Senator Lugar. There will always be aspects of international efforts that are difficult to handle through government channels, where the private resources of the NTL may be vital. But even as we congratulate ourselves over this victory, we need to recognize that it is very small in the overall scale of the problem. Estimates are that weapons-grade uranium exists at over 350 sites in over 50 countries. Some of these have very small quantities, but many of these locations have enough material for one or more bombs. Some of these sites include research reactors, provided by either the United States or the Soviet Union, fueled by highly enriched uranium which could be diverted for weapons use. And we also need to examine why it required such complex coordination to accomplish this work and explore how Congress can simplify the process in the future. This part of the puzzle has a much simpler solution, because the tools to accomplish this are now part of the Senate-House conference on the Armed Services authorizing legislation. Let me briefly explain why the Vinca operation required so much coordination. The Yugoslavian government very logically required that any Vinca solution address both fresh fuel and spent fuel from their research reactor. The fresh fuel was highly enriched uranium, and our government was able to assist because it represented a proliferation threat for weapons of mass destruction. That cooperation is authorized through the 1991 Nunn-Lugar and the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Legislation. But the spent fuel at Vinca, which is not useful for making a nuclear weapon, could pose both an environmental concern as well as a dirty bomb threat, depending on its level of radioactivity. The former represents work that is clearly beyond the authorization of our Government's nonproliferation mission and the latter represents work that is not authorized. Now since September 11, there have been volumes of testimony on the threat posed by highly radioactive materials and their potential use as dirty bombs. But today, despite these concerns, there are no statutes which address the government's authority to offer help to other countries regarding dirty bomb threats. I am pleased to note that the Domenici-Biden amendment to the Senate Armed Services legislation provides authorizations to enlarge the ability of the government to step into such situations. With final passage of that amendment in the Armed Services legislation, we can provide important new tools to our government. Under that amendment, programs to address dirty bomb issues are specifically authorized, including assistance to any country requesting our aid. And of equal importance, programs to broaden our ability to address fissile material issues around the world, not just associated with the former Soviet Union, are authorized along with new approaches to speed up the conversion of highly enriched uranium to material unusable for weapons. Even with this amendment, I am sure there will be many opportunities for private groups, like the NTI, to step in and plug gaps in Government programs. But with this amendment, we will vastly simplify future operations at the hundreds of remaining sites. The Domenici-Biden amendment enjoyed broad support in the Senate, and I appreciate that Senators Lugar, Landrieu, Hagel, Carnahan, Murkowski, Bingaman, and Lincoln joined us in introducing it. It is my hope that the success at Vinca, along with the sobering realization that we need to repeat this success hundreds of times to fully address the threat of proliferation of materials suitable for nuclear bombs, will encourage the Conferees from both the House and the Senate to ensure that provisions of the Domenici-Biden amendment are in the Armed Services authorization bill that will eventually emerge from Conference.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to include in the Record today an inspiring and uplifting occurrence in my home State of New Mexico. Percent news from any Army Corps of Engineers publication, Engineer Update, provides a particular instance in which the Corps went the extra mile to successfully rescue sand hill cranes under uncommon circumstances. In the middle of repairs on Jemez Dam the cranes were foraging for food and getting trapped in the mud left over from having to drain the reservoir. The depth of the mud and the size and nature of the cranes made the situation extremely hazardous for anyone to get involved. After bringing in a special boat that could handle the mud they were able to capture the birds and get them to safety where they were cleaned and released. All the while, the Corps put forth the measures to prevent anymore birds from being trapped in the mud. This was an exceptional effort on the Corps of Engineers' part to handle both the job at hand and the surrounding effects of their labor. I commend them on their concern for the environment in the midst of their already tough labor. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico. Specifically, this bill will address the mounting pressures brought on by the growing demands, on all fronts, of a diminishing water supply. As you may know the water situation in the west can be described at this time, as difficult at best. Annual snow packs were abnormally low this year causing many areas in the west to be plagued by severe drought conditions. The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more acute every single day. The chance of this drought effecting every New Mexican in some way is substantial. Wells are running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by catastrophic wildfires. The drought conditions also have other consequences. For example, the lack of stream flow makes it very difficult for New Mexico to meet its compact delivery obligations to the state of Texas. The bill that I am introducing today deals more specifically with the issue of in stream water flows. To compound the drought situation, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water- thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies--the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers. Estimates show that one mature salt cedar tree can consume as much as 200 gallons of water per day. In addition to the excessive water consumption, salt cedars increase fire and flood frequency, increase river channelization, decrease water flow and increase water and soil salinity along the river. Studies indicate that eradication of the salt cedars could increase river flows. Increasing river flows could help alleviate mounting pressure to meet compact delivery obligations-- especially on the Pecos. This bill that I am introducing today would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to establish a research and demonstration program to help with the eradication of this non-native species. In addition to projects along the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other states with similar problems, including Texas, Colorado, Utah and Arizona to develop and participate in similar projects as well. The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis. Solving such water problems has become one of my top priorities for the state. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and my statement be printed in the record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation that declares the United States holds certain public domain lands in trust for the Pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico. In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pursuant to the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, declared approximately 4,484 acres located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico, including portions of Garcia and Chupadero Canyons, to be ``disposal property.'' The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify for disposal partially because the tract is an isolated tract of land almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded on three sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblo's reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or no public usage of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands in recent decades. I understand that currently there are no resource permits, leases, patents or claims affecting these lands. It is unlikely that any significant minerals exist with the Garcia Canyon transfer lands. The Garcia Canyon transfer lands contain a limited amount of lesser quality forage for livestock and have not been actively grazed for over a decade. However, the Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an important part of the ancestral homelands of the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso. Santa Clara and San Ildefonso are two of the Tewa-speaking federally- recognized Indian Pueblos of New Mexico. Both Pueblos have occupied and controlled the areas where they are presently located since many centuries before the arrival of the first Europeans in the area in late 16th century. Their homelands are defined by geographical landmarks, cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional Tewa names and locations have been known and passed down in each Pueblo through the generations. Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands is within the aboriginal domain of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The remaining lands, approximately 2,484 acres are in Santa Clara's aboriginal lands. The Bureau of Land Management currently seeks to dispose of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands and the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso seek to obtain these lands. In addition, the BLM and Interior Department for years have supported the transfer of the land to the two Pueblos, provided the Pueblos agree upon a division of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal agreement affirming the boundary between their respective parcels on December 20, 2000. The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have worked diligently in arriving at this agreement. They have also worked collaboratively in seeking community support and garnering supporting resolutions from Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, the National Congress of American Indians and supporting letters from the National Audubon Society's New Mexico State Office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club. This unique situation presents a win-win opportunity to support more efficient management of public resources while restoring to tribal control isolated tracts of federal disposal property. Upon transfer, the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso intend to maintain these lands in their natural state and use them for sustainable traditional purposes including cultural resource gathering, hunting and possibly livestock grazing. Where appropriate, both tribes are interested in performing work to restore and improve ecosystem health, particularly to support habitat for culturally significant animal and plant species. Both Pueblos have experienced Natural Resource Management and Environmental Protection programs and are capable of managing these lands for both ecologic health and community benefits. We want to secure Congressional authorization to transfer control of these lands to the two Pueblos, with legal title being held in trust by the Secretary of Interior for each of the Pueblos for their respective portions of the property. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico. Specifically, this bill will address the mounting pressures brought on by the growing demands, on all fronts, of a diminishing water supply. As you may know the water situation in the west can be described at this time, as difficult at best. Annual snow packs were abnormally low this year causing many areas in the west to be plagued by severe drought conditions. The seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more acute every single day. The chance of this drought effecting every New Mexican in some way is substantial. Wells are running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by catastrophic wildfires. The drought conditions also have other consequences. For example, the lack of stream flow makes it very difficult for New Mexico to meet its compact delivery obligations to the state of Texas. The bill that I am introducing today deals more specifically with the issue of in stream water flows. To compound the drought situation, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water- thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies--the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers. Estimates show that one mature salt cedar tree can consume as much as 200 gallons of water per day. In addition to the excessive water consumption, salt cedars increase fire and flood frequency, increase river channelization, decrease water flow and increase water and soil salinity along the river. Studies indicate that eradication of the salt cedars could increase river flows. Increasing river flows could help alleviate mounting pressure to meet compact delivery obligations-- especially on the Pecos. This bill that I am introducing today would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to establish a research and demonstration program to help with the eradication of this non-native species. In addition to projects along the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other states with similar problems, including Texas, Colorado, Utah and Arizona to develop and participate in similar projects as well. The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis. Solving such water problems has become one of my top priorities for the state. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and my statement be printed in the record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation that declares the United States holds certain public domain lands in trust for the Pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Clara in New Mexico. In 1988 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pursuant to the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, declared approximately 4,484 acres located in the eastern foothills of the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico, including portions of Garcia and Chupadero Canyons, to be ``disposal property.'' The Garcia Canyon surplus lands qualify for disposal partially because the tract is an isolated tract of land almost inaccessible to the general public. It is surrounded on three sides by the reservations of Santa Clara Pueblo and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and by U.S. Forest Service land on the remaining side. The only road access consists of unimproved roads through the two Pueblo's reservations. These factors have resulted in minimal or no public usage of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands in recent decades. I understand that currently there are no resource permits, leases, patents or claims affecting these lands. It is unlikely that any significant minerals exist with the Garcia Canyon transfer lands. The Garcia Canyon transfer lands contain a limited amount of lesser quality forage for livestock and have not been actively grazed for over a decade. However, the Garcia Canyon surplus lands constitute an important part of the ancestral homelands of the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso. Santa Clara and San Ildefonso are two of the Tewa-speaking federally- recognized Indian Pueblos of New Mexico. Both Pueblos have occupied and controlled the areas where they are presently located since many centuries before the arrival of the first Europeans in the area in late 16th century. Their homelands are defined by geographical landmarks, cultural sites, and other distinct places whose traditional Tewa names and locations have been known and passed down in each Pueblo through the generations. Based upon these boundaries, about 2,000 acres of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands is within the aboriginal domain of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso. The remaining lands, approximately 2,484 acres are in Santa Clara's aboriginal lands. The Bureau of Land Management currently seeks to dispose of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands and the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso seek to obtain these lands. In addition, the BLM and Interior Department for years have supported the transfer of the land to the two Pueblos, provided the Pueblos agree upon a division of the Garcia Canyon surplus lands. In response, the two Pueblos signed a formal agreement affirming the boundary between their respective parcels on December 20, 2000. The Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso have worked diligently in arriving at this agreement. They have also worked collaboratively in seeking community support and garnering supporting resolutions from Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, the National Congress of American Indians and supporting letters from the National Audubon Society's New Mexico State Office, the Quivira Coalition and the Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club. This unique situation presents a win-win opportunity to support more efficient management of public resources while restoring to tribal control isolated tracts of federal disposal property. Upon transfer, the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Ildefonso intend to maintain these lands in their natural state and use them for sustainable traditional purposes including cultural resource gathering, hunting and possibly livestock grazing. Where appropriate, both tribes are interested in performing work to restore and improve ecosystem health, particularly to support habitat for culturally significant animal and plant species. Both Pueblos have experienced Natural Resource Management and Environmental Protection programs and are capable of managing these lands for both ecologic health and community benefits. We want to secure Congressional authorization to transfer control of these lands to the two Pueblos, with legal title being held in trust by the Secretary of Interior for each of the Pueblos for their respective portions of the property. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to join the National Civic League in recognizing the city of Roswell, NM as a recipient of the 2002 All-America City award. Roswell is one of the most fascinating cities in America. Perhaps Roswell's most notorious claim to fame is the 1947 ``Roswell Incident,'' in which an alleged space craft is said to have crashed nearby. It was in Roswell that Dr. Robert H. Goddard chose to launch the first rockets into space, propelling him into history as the father of space exploration. The New Mexico Military Institute, noted for such distinguished alums as Roger Staubach, Sam Donaldson, and Conrad Hilton, has been training tomorrow's future leaders in the Roswell area since 1891. However, Roswell has much more to offer than stories about extraterrestrials. The city has been at the forefront of local civic programs aimed at improving community standards. The Nothing Other Than Excellence, NOTE, program emphasizes how music appreciation can benefit reading and math abilities. A low-income dental program, the Community Dental Initiative, has provided a creative way to provide access to affordable dental needs by combining a mobile dental clinic with a permanent clinic helping to reach under-served people. In addition, the city has taken up my initiative to get schools and communities involved in character education. They have developed a citywide program involving schools, parents, churches, and the government to promote Character Counts, a program that stresses the importance of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, caring, citizenship, and fairness in young people's lives. It is for their civic work that the National Civic League recognized Roswell as an All-America City. For the past 53 years, the National Civic League annually chooses 10 outstanding communities for their efforts to involve community members in innovative projects to address local challenges. I am pleased that Roswell has tried to create a better community through active public participation in civic activities. Roswell's success is due to the active involvement of the community and their willingness to make a difference in each other's lives. All of Roswell can bask in the honor of being selected as an All-America City. This could not have been achieved without everyone's support. I commend you all on your well deserved recognition.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my efforts to raise awareness of the dire situation we are facing in the western United States due to the ongoing drought. I have been speaking on the Senate floor repeatedly emphasizing the impact the drought is having on the west, and especially its impact on New Mexico. The water situation has affected businesses and the livestock industry, and it has turned forests into tinderboxes. Now, it appears that there is another problem arising from the lack of water. A recent article by the Albuquerque Journal highlights the fact that ``hundreds of thousands of bark beetles [are] killing Pinon pines all over New Mexico.'' These are ``trees that have survived New Mexico's arid climate for 75 or 100 years [and] are [now] succumbing to the beetles.'' Under normal conditions, stressed trees would use internal sap pressure to fend off an infestation. However, under current conditions, the trees do not have enough moisture to adequately fight back, and they are overwhelmed by the beetles and devastated. They have to be cut down, stacked, and covered with plastic to prevent the escape of the beetles. If New Mexico's Pinon trees suffer, so too will some area economies. New Mexico is known for its unique food flavors and its native art. Pinon nuts are a true New Mexico treat which can be harvested and eaten as a snack. Roasted nuts can sell for around $9 a pound and bring much needed tourism dollars to our state. In addition, Pinon pitch can be used as a glaze for Navajo pottery providing the finishing touches to their beautiful designs. Prolonged damage to the Pinon trees will create further hardships for New Mexico's economy. With each passing day, the conditions in New Mexico will continue to become worse. At some point or another, every individual in New Mexico will feel the impact of this drought and continue to face hardships until we take proper action to alleviate the situation. I ask that the July 24, 2002, Albuquerque Journal article entitled, ``Parched Pinon Under Deadly Attack'' be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Albuquerque Journal, July 24, 2002] Parched Pinons Under Deadly Attack (By Tania Soussan) First came the fires. Then withered crops. Now the drought's latest plague: hundreds of thousands of bark beetles killing pinon pines all over New Mexico. ``In many areas, they're taking out all of the trees,'' said Bob Cain, a New Mexico State University forest entomologist.'' . . . It's going to be a long time before there's many pinon in there again.'' Even before the drought of 2002, the trees faced still competition for water because forests have grown overly dense during decades of human fire suppression. The drought has made the situation even worse. Without adequate water, the pinons can't repel the bark beetles that burrow into vital tissues, lay eggs and munch away. ``It's been something that's been building the last several years, especially since 2000,'' Cain said, adding that the bark beetles are one of nature's ways of thinning a forest. Carol Sutherland, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture's top bug expert, agreed. ``Trees that are under stress are getting hammered badly by all manner of bark beetles,'' she said recently. The worst infestations are in the area between Magdalena and Quemado in the western part of the state, around Ojo Caliente in northern New Mexico, in the Sacramento Mountains and Ruidoso. Near Silver City, ponderosa pines also are being hit hard. Even trees that have survived New Mexico's arid climate for 75 or 100 years are succumbing to the beetles this year, said Terry Rogers, forest entomologist for the U.S. Forest Service in New Mexico. On a hillside outside of Santa Fe, Cain recently examined a pocket of pinons fighting a hopeless battle for life. The pine needles on one tree were turning a pale, whitish green. Another tree already had gone reddish brown. ``There's nothing you can do to save this tree,'' Cain said. ``This drought has been so severe that even trees that should have enough resources around them are getting hit.'' Pencil lead-sized holes in the trunk marked where the beetles entered, and small piles of fine sawdust on the branches and the ground were signs of their success. In addition, there were several ``pitch tubes'' on the broad trunk. The tree had spurted out resin, or sap, in an attempt to eject the beetles. A healthy tree can fight off beetles that way, but drought means the trees don't have enough moisture to produce the needed sap. Bark beetles are efficient killers. Once a few successfully bore into a pinon or ponderosa pine, they send out a chemical signal that attracts thousands of other beetles. They invade the phloem tissue right under the bark, the tissue that carries sugars from the pine needles to the tree's roots. The beetles also carry pockets of fungus on their bodies. The fungus attacks the water-conducting tissues of the tree. Once the signs of beetle infestation are clear, it's too late to save the tree. ``You really have no good evidence of beetles in the tree until the tree is fading,'' Cain said. ``Insecticides are not efficient at that point.'' The only solution is to cut down the tree and get rid of it--and the beetles inside--to stop the beetle invasion from spreading to other trees. To use it for firewood, first stack the logs in the sun and cover them with plastic for several days to kill the beetles. The insecticide Sevin can be used to protect high-value trees that are at risk, but Cain does not recommend it for general use. Watering trees so they are able to fight off an attack also can help. ``The good news is if we get these monsoons, the trees will become more resistant,'' he said. Drought also has increased populations of spider mites in corn crops in eastern New Mexico. ``It can be quite severe,'' said Mike English, head of the NMSU Extension Service's Agricultural Science Center in Los Lunas. ``It can lose half your crop.'' The drought could be making blood-sucking kissing bugs a problem in the southern part of the state, Sutherland said. The bugs' usual prey, small rodents and birds, probably are in shorter supply so they are biting people and leaving behind big, itchy welts, she said. ``You've seen mosquito bites but you ain't seen nothing yet,''she said. ``These are a lot worse.'' Still, the situation in New Mexico could be worse. Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets are ravaging crops and pastures in Nebraska and other Western states in what could be the biggest such infestation since World War II, according to agricultural officials. There were early reports of a few pockets of grasshopper problems in New Mexico, in Lea and Eddy counties and near Silver City, English said. But Sutherland said there were no reports of major problems in the state as of mid- July.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. The Republican leader has designated the Senator from New Mexico to control the time. I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, fellow Senators, a week ago the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, testified before the Senate Banking Committee. It is important to take note of what he said at that hearing and where he thinks our economy is headed. Despite the obvious bear market which prevailed until yesterday, when we had a rather significant bull market for the day, our economy's fundamentals are strong. Despite this bear market, our economy is not headed for another recession in the near future. Productivity growth is rapid. Inflation is low. Mortgage rates are also low, as everyone knows. That has kept the housing market very strong. Families have been taking advantage of these low-income rates by buying homes at a record pace and refinancing old ones, thus yielding either lower payments or cash at hand which they are using to acquire what they believe they need. Notice that those who claimed that the tax cut would lead to higher interest rates have been very quiet of late, at least on that point. The Federal Reserve sees the economy as growing at about a 3-percent rate in the second half of this year and even faster next year. The unemployment rate will probably end the year at about 5.9 percent. That is about right where it is now. Next year, the jobless rate could drop to about 5.4 percent. This does not mean the outlook lacks uncertainty. The recent weakness in the stock market is important. The American people are worried, concerned. Lower equity prices create a negative wealth effect that will be a drag on consumer spending, as I have just indicated. Lower stock prices also make it tougher for businesses to acquire the capital they need to invest. Slow business investment continues to be our economy's weakest point. And, of course, we still face the risk of further terrorist attacks or other conflicts that could disrupt the energy market. Chairman Greenspan also observed: To a degree, the return to budget deficits has been the result of temporary factors, especially the falloff of revenue, of tax take, and the increase in outlays associated with the economic downturn. But the chairman also observed that unfortunately, despite these temporary factors impacting the deficit, he also saw signs that the underlying disciplinary mechanisms that form the framework for Federal budgets over the last 15 years have eroded. I would say one of the most obvious ``disciplinary mechanisms,'' to borrow his words, is the adoption of a congressional budget. I have spoken in the past here on the floor about the failure to adopt a budget resolution this year. Clearly, this is the one thing we can do in the Congress to send a message to the American public and to the markets that we understand the importance of having a budget in these difficult economic times. So far we have failed as elected officials to do the most essential of our responsibilities--adopt a budget. Clearly, the other side of the aisle, the Democrats and their leadership, bear that responsibility, the responsibility to have continued on with the budget process and to have produced a budget resolution. We know that even on this most serious of debates, with reference to prescription drugs for our seniors, the absence of a budget resolution has found its way here to the floor. Because there is not a budget resolution that impacts for the remainder of this year, we then look to the previous year for the impacts, plus or minus impacts, on adopting a prescription drug bill. Lo and behold, we find the previous year's budget, the budget that this Senator, as chairman, helped put together, is now impacting and will through the remainder of this fiscal year be impacting on what we can do in Medicare. Clearly, it is saying we can only spend $300 billion over the next decade. That was the judgment of the Senate when it last voted in a budget resolution. Things have not gotten better but perhaps have gotten somewhat worse during that intervening year. We are here on the floor discussing a Medicare bill that is much larger than what we talked about the year previous when we had a rather positive economy, not one that was in the red but one that was in the black. Now the question is, What shall we do for the remainder of this year, up until October 1, when all the appropriations bills are subject to adoption in both Houses, to go to conference, come back, and then go to the President--when all the other measures on which we have been going slow, or are in conference, have to come up? Are we going to have no budget resolution nor budget statement impacts on any of those activities, the sum total of which are the budget, and determine, starting October 1, what we shall do? It makes it difficult. Even the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the President pro tempore, responding to a question about how not having a budget would affect the ability to work on appropriations bills, said--and I quote from The Hill magazine: It makes it difficult because we don't have the disciplinary mechanisms at our fingertips that would otherwise be the case if we had a budget. The Appropriations Committee, under his leadership and that of Senator Stevens as ranking member, is fully aware their appropriations bills, one by one, when added together are the sum total of the budget for the year starting October 1. They have recommended on one of the bills that there be a sense of the Senate that they will engage in attempting, with the Senate, to bind themselves to the numbers in the appropriations bills, saying we will be bound by those even though we do not have a budget resolution that would normally give the numbers, prescribe them to the committee. I gather that means the Budget Committee chairman and ranking member--with that language, that sense of the Senate, saying that we will be bound by the sum total of the allocations to the subcommittees--I gather they clearly are concerned that if we do not have something, the bills eventually will be subject to whatever the Senate would vote in and have no overlying power that says you can't go over this or you suffer some kind of penalty. Senator Byrd and Dr. Greenspan have spoken. I tried on two or three occasions on the floor to remind us, as Senator Judd Gregg has, and some Democrats have taken to the floor concerned about the fact that we don't have any discipline. It makes it difficult because we don't have the disciplinary mechanisms at our fingertips. That is what the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee said a few days ago. A couple of weeks ago, absent a real budget resolution, we came close to adopting at least a poor version of a budget by trying to set spending caps for the appropriations process, enforceable only here in the Senate next year, and extending with Senate enforcement tools some expiring Budget Enforcement Act provisions. But let it be clear, this is not a budget resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let it be clear this was not a Senate budget resolution on which we voted. It was an attempt to address just a small portion of the Federal spending that indeed will take place between now and the end of next year. Let it be clear that this is not a budget resolution because it only applied to appropriations, and budget resolutions go well beyond the appropriations bills which constitute about one-third of the spending of our Nation. Two-thirds are subject to other approaches to spending, mandatory approaches--they are automatic, like Social Security, like Medicare. And the sum total of all those--Federal pensions, military pensions and on and on--the sum total of all of those mandatory, obligatory ones is two-thirds of the spending. A real budget would address the other two-thirds, that which we call generally entitlement spending. I think we are now beginning to see firsthand what it means not to have a budget resolution as we are here on the floor debating adding new spending to one of the largest Federal entitlement programs, the Medicare Program. The process does matter. An updated budget resolution would have updated our spending estimates and we would now be debating these prescription drug amendments to the current Medicare Program in a more honest and transparent manner. I think it is important that we listen up and we pay attention. This is a very serious situation. If in fact spending were to get out of hand, we hear Alan Greenspan warning us that one of the most significant qualities, characteristics of this American economy--one of the most serious ones would be for those who understand budgets to conclude that the fiscal policy is out of hand, that we don't know where it is going, and we don't know how much we are going to spend. I don't think that is the case. But some who would look at what we have done and not done might conclude that we are not as committed as we were a couple of years ago when we had budgets, reserve funds, and all the kinds of things we have grown to use around here. It is obvious we just have projections and estimates of costs based on the Congressional Budget Office and their most current projections. But because we don't have a budget resolution that is based on current estimates, the procedural points of order that lie against all of these amendments result from the fact that last year's budget resolution is the only one we have, and it was estimated using an entirely different set of projections. What this says is we are using enforcement tools that were in last year's budget based upon where we are going to be with reference to expenditures, tax intake, and, thus, deficits, or being in the black and with a surplus. Regardless of whose amendment one supports, not having a current budget resolution penalizes all proposals. This is not the way to consider one of the most important and probably most expensive legislative proposals to come before the Congress in years; that is, prescription drug provisions that we are debating. We therefore see the failure to adopt a budget resolution, we see it impacting on the way the Senate can conduct business here on the floor. We are tied up in trying to consider a prescription drug bill while bypassing the Senate Finance Committee. If the majority leader chooses to proceed without waiting for, or without expecting and relying upon a bill that the Finance Committee and committee debate produces and sends to the Senate, that is his prerogative. I believe in these particular times, with all of the facts I have just described, that it is not the best way to do it. But there are even other reasons beyond budgetary that cry out for it not being the best way to conduct business--be it an energy bill, which we did directly on the floor and didn't have language from a committee as a formal bill with the appropriate documents attendant thereto, to many others that we are taking up out of the majority leader's office and putting up here on the floor without the committee authentication which comes from the committee debate, which is a very heralded and important part of the Senate process. Chairman Greenspan also spoke specifically about the other rules that were incorporated into the Budget Act and, thus, are in the budget. They came into being when our country had another bad time. We went out and met at Andrews Air Force Base. We came back with a series of proposals, one of which was called a pay-go, and spending caps. These are devices that helped at least provide some tools for statutory and congressional fiscal policy deliberations. These were enforced by points of order. The point of order lied. These provisions were operative--or any one of them. Then we were penalized and had to have 60 votes rather than 51. That is wherein the drug bill lies in terms of the process. This is something we can do. I have introduced legislation to extend the budget enforcement provisions, including the spending caps, establishing firewalls that go between the nondefense and defense, pay-go rules impacting the mandatory spending programs and tax revenues, limitations on the advanced appropriations, and other provisions that I believe are the minimum needed to maintain some semblance of statutory and congressional budget authority. Let it be clear that this legislation is not a budget resolution, it is strictly enforcement provisions. But it is the heart and soul of budget enforcement mechanisms that would be here if we were adopting a budget under the existing budget law. It is essential that we do at least this much, and we ought to give serious consideration to doing it before this year ends. I once again borrow the language of Dr. Greenspan when he calls all these things disciplinary mechanisms. We need to reassert them-- something Chairman Greenspan and Chairman Byrd reminded us that we need. This is important to the way we conduct business and the signal it sends to the markets and the economy. Also, my colleagues joined in other legislation that I hope we can find some way to have adopted before the new fiscal year begins on October 1. I have heretofore introduced a summary of this proposal. After getting closer and talking to more people, I put some more flesh on it. I don't want to formally introduce it, but I want to send attendant to this speech, following it, a proposal that will be called a bill. It indeed would be the proposal I have summarized that, as a minimal, we would need. I hope Senators will pay attention to it. Perhaps by the end of the day today we can find out whether there is a genuine interest. If there is not, then obviously I believe I have done my best to call attention to it and to provide how it might be done. I submit that there is indeed a possibility that if this were to pass and the Senate were to adopt it, and since it applies only to us-- the House offers it through its Rules Committee--if we were to adopt it, I have every reason to believe it would have a positive impact on those who are wondering what is our fiscal policy after this October and into a year with new so-called disciplinary functions available. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, first, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding time. Second, I compliment him and the senior Senator from Nevada for offering this proposal which gives us a chance to do something very significant for our senior citizens. Let me go back and trace a little bit of modern history so everybody will know what caused the predicament we are in and why we can't do much more than this for our seniors at this point in time. First, the last budget resolution that passed was a budget resolution when we were in control by one or two votes. That budget resolution provided for a reform of Medicare and a prescription drug benefit that did not cost more than $300 billion over 10 years. We didn't use that because the history has it that the last President got in a very big argument with a bipartisan committee and told them to vote with him and out the window went a bipartisan reform bill. It went, because the last President--President Clinton--wanted Medicare reform, but only his, even though he had appointed a commission. There is one. Chalk that one up. Who is responsible for that one? President Clinton, without a doubt. Now comes the time when we are supposed to pass a budget resolution. The last time I heard it was the responsibility of the majority party to report one out and to take one up on the floor. They didn't have to report it out but to take it up and do the business of the Senate by passing a budget resolution. What happened in the middle of all this was that a Senator left our side of the aisle and joined their side of the aisle for votes and they became responsible for passing a budget resolution. For the first time, since we had a Budget Act 27 years, we are operating without a budget. We are operating without a new budget that suggests how much money the Senate wants to spend in the next 10 years on prescription drugs. There is no current budget that says that. If they would have put one in place, guess what. It would only require 51 votes. That is not our fault. That is their fault. They did not do it. Consequently, 60 votes are required to get the seniors of America a Medicare bill. I am not sure that some people think that is good and others think that is bad. I am just stating the facts. That is the reason 60 votes are required. The seniors ought to know that. That is not the Republicans. That is not our President. That is the Democratic leadership here which said, That budget is getting too tough, let us just not do one. I did 27 in my life; 12 of them as the chairman when we had to produce them. We always produced them. Believe you me, they were tough. Some took 2 weeks. Some took 80 votes. One time we did 37 votes in a row with Howard Baker sitting right at that table, all of which we had to win and all of which we had to fight for, because under the old rules you could offer almost anything. Here we come at the end of the year and the leadership on that side of the aisle promises a Medicare bill for the seniors of America, but they cannot pass one because they did not do a budget. Therefore, 60 votes are required--not 51. I repeat: That is not the Republicans' fault. It is not the President's fault. I can vividly recall some leading Democrats when they were asked, Why aren't we doing a budget resolution? Oh, well, one of them said, It is too hard this year. Maybe we don't need one. Now here is where we are as a result of that. I compliment the two Senators. They have a third Senator. I am very lucky. I joined them yesterday. I am a cosponsor of theirs. Frankly, I went with the tripartisan bill yesterday. If that had passed, we would be finished. But it didn't pass because it only got 48 votes, or 47. It needs 60. That is a pretty good chunk of votes, however, to get you started. What do I say? I look at all of this and I ask, Is there anybody who has an amendment that does not require 60 votes and still will do something good for the seniors? This amendment will not exceed $300 billion. I do not know the number exactly, but I am going to guess with you that it is between $285 billion, $290 billion, or $295 billion. So this amendment clearly only needs 51 votes. If you want to give the seniors something, 51 votes is all that is necessary. From what I can tell, it is a very good approach to get the seniors something this year. It will take care of the seniors who are in the biggest trouble with expensive drug bills. For those who have expensive drug bills now, it will take care of them and all of the people who are poor under anyone's definition of poverty. It will take care of them. What is wrong with that? About $295 billion, or $280 billion--just what the budget resolution said you ought to spend on the whole program just 18 months ago. I thank the Senators for what I think is a rather ingenious bill. I don't think it carries with it any acrimony. If the Democrats don't want any bill at all, they can look right there to the seniors and say this is what they are going to get. The Hagel amendment does not have a 60-vote requirement in terms of cost because it comes in under the cost. However, it was not produced by the Finance Committee because they were not permitted to produce any bill. So it probably needs 60 votes. Clearly, if we have the sufficient votes to adopt this, there would be some way of getting it back to committee, and getting it out of there. I urge a vote for it because there is a real chance we will send the right signal, and set before us a way to get a bill this year. I thank the Senator, again, for yielding. And I thank the Senate for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today in support of Dr. Richard Carmona, the President's nominee to be the Surgeon General of the United States. The job of Surgeon General is a challenging and evolving one. The traditional requirements of disease prevention and health promotion continue to be vitally important. We must have a Surgeon General who is qualified and prepared to address these issues. However, in this post-September 11 world, being the chief Public Health Officer also involves addressing the very real threat of bioterrorism. Therefore, it is imperative that our Surgeon General have the background and ability to deal with this new threat. Fortunately, the President selected a candidate for this position who is uniquely qualified to address all of these requirements of the job. I won't attempt to recite all of his numerous accomplishments and qualifications, but I would like to briefly touch on a few, simply to illustrate why I believe this is the right man at the right time for this job. Dr. Carmona's educational background, with a medical degree and a Masters in Public Health, provides a solid foundation. It is his experience, however, that solidifies his qualification for this position. Dr. Carmona has a tremendous amount of hands-on experience as a trauma surgeon, professor, and medical director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety Air Rescue Unit. His experience as a professor at the University of Arizona has given him the opportunity to teach about public health, surgery, and family and community medicine. As a result, he has spent a great deal of time dealing with those more traditional aspects of the job. As for the more recent responsibilities that come with being named Surgeon General, Dr. Carmona has been working on the issue of bioterrorism since the mid-1990's. He has worked to develop seminars on bioterrorism for medical students. Furthermore, he recognizes the importance of coordinating the schools of public health with other local agencies to prevent and respond to potential threats. While I could spend much more time touting the qualifications of Dr. Carmona, I will instead end by saying I am thankful that this remarkable American has answered the President's call to serve. As a New Mexican, I am pleased to extend a neighborly welcome to someone else from the great Southwest. As a U.S. Senator, I am proud to cast my vote to confirm him as the Surgeon General of the United States.