Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. If I can get through sooner, I will. First, I want to make sure everybody knows what bill I am talking about. I hear the word ``Republican.'' I am for a bill that has as cosponsors Senator Breaux, who is a Democrat, Senator Jeffords, who is an Independent, and Senators Snowe, Hatch, and Grassley, who are Republicans. That is the bill I am for, and that is the bill I am going to be talking about. I rise as a cosponsor of the bill that is being called the 21st Century Medicare Act, a bill which will provide our Nation's seniors with a much needed prescription benefit. I believe this bill is the best hope we have for enacting a prescription drug benefit into law this year. If there are those who do not want a law, because they do not think they are going to get what they want this year, that is another story. Either of the other two might suffice, but it won't become law. This bill has a chance because it is similar yet less funding than the House bill, similar in the way it is structured and the like. I believe it could get out of conference, and the seniors could have something that would be worthwhile. It isn't the highest benefit, and certainly, if you are expressing a wish, you would like the highest benefit. But I would like to discuss with you the fact that the seniors of this country are somewhat worried about the young people who are going to be paying the bills for a long time. They are somewhat concerned about whether we can afford at this particular time the benefit that one party is talking about versus another. If we pass the bill I am talking about, I believe it will reach agreement in conference with the House and we can send it to the President. Then finally, after years of talking, our seniors will get a prescription drug benefit they need. The tripartisan bill provides a generous prescription drug benefit that will help all of our seniors with their drug costs. It does so in a responsible manner. In the budget resolution I put together with other Members of the Senate last year, the only budget resolution currently in effect in the Senate--in other words, that is the budget resolution that assumes we can afford the things that are enumerated in it, Senators Grassley, Snowe, Gordon Smith, and others on that committee called the Committee of the Budget--set aside $300 billion over a 10-year period for Medicare modernization and a prescription drug benefit. This $300 billion was to cover the period from 2002 until 2011. The tripartisan bill is estimated to cost about $370 billion over a 10-year period from 2003 to 2012. We are debating a prescription drug amendment with costs based on the Congressional Budget Office current projections. Yet we are enforcing points of order from a budget resolution that is based on the Congressional Budget Office projections for last year. Now, as we are all aware, the budget situation has changed dramatically over the past year. As a matter of fact, when we said it will be prudent and good for America to spend $300 billion, we were in the black. It was one of those years when we actually had money in the bank, were applying money to the debt, and it looked as if the American economy and our fiscal policy would be sound and strong. As I stand here and speak, we have gone from that position to a debt in the budget of $165 billion. It will be there for anywhere from 3 to 5--maximum 8 or 9 years--if we do things right. The attacks on our Nation, the war on terror, the economic slowdown have all resulted in a reduction of these surplus projections. Yet the Senate leadership has been unwilling or unable to produce a budget resolution for this year; that is, the Democrats will have us operate, including passing a Medicare Program, without a budget. We don't know, with an official stamp of approval, what the budget is going to look like for the next 8 or 10 years, but here we are passing a Medicare Program that in one instance is two and a half times the amount we said was fiscally prudent for all Americans, not just the seniors, just 2 years ago when we were running a budget that was in the black. An updated budget resolution could have an update on our spending estimates, and we would be debating these prescription drug amendments to the current Medicare Program in a more honest and transparent way. Last year during the debate on the budget resolution, every Senator in this Chamber voted for funding of either $300 billion or $311 billion over 10 years. Those were the two chances to vote. They voted on them, every single one. They said, with a better American fiscal policy, they were more concerned about the future than they are now with a debt, and they all voted on between 300 and 311. The Democrat proposal, I believe, is up around $600 billion. I don't believe, had we been voting on a budget instead of saying we don't need a budget, let's don't vote on one, had we been voting on one, the Senate would have put a budget before us on Medicare that would have been far less than $600 billion, if you are required to get a majority of the Senators as you would on a budget. Here again, it has worked to the American people's disadvantage. By not having a budget resolution, we are probably going to overspend or we are going to kill the chance to get a Medicare prescription drug benefit package out of both Houses and before the President to sign. From my standpoint, we can continue to argue and make like we are going to give the seniors the best program; that is, the most costly one, not the middle of the road one which we can really afford, and then we say, of course, the seniors want it. But if you presented to the seniors of America all the other problems we have in the next decade and asked them which they would want--do you want to say the one just for us or do you want to say one that would be good for everybody, I believe the triparty one before us will be good for everyone. But most importantly, from the practical, not political standpoint, you will get a prescription drug benefit program this year, effective next year, under the plan that is before you that is called triparty. You won't, if you proceed with the idea that the Democrats have the best plan and the bipartisan, triparty one should not be considered because it doesn't provide as much money. I believe the seniors of this country want a plan that will pass, that can become law now. I believe they want one that is good for America, not just good for them. I believe they want one that is fiscally sound. We are all worried about the American economy. The man who knows most about it says the one thing we ought to be frightened about is spending too much money while we are in this rather fragile situation. Yet we are here arguing that the plan we ought to vote on is the one that spends the most money. It seems to me that the House will stand in the way of that program. The President won't have to pass on it, and we will get nothing. We will have a vote. Those who are for the Democratic plan can go home and say: We voted for the most expensive one, the one we think will give the seniors the most. Whether it ever becomes law or not, we voted for it. We will put that up on a television screen. We voted for it. Somebody is going to be asking: What happened to the law? Well, it never passed. Why didn't it pass? Because the House wouldn't approve it, because many Republicans and some Democrats wouldn't approve it. You got nothing. That is what I think the end product is going to be--nothing. We ought to sit down and think about which plan would be adequate and which plan might, in fact, become law this coming year for the seniors.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise first in support of our free market economy. The revelations over the last few months of corporate officials having betrayed the trust of their employees and their investors is simply unacceptable. These corporate officials must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if additional penalties are required, then we should enact them. But let us not forget, that despite these terrible, unconscionable acts perpetrated by some CEOs on their workers and investors, the principles of our free market economy remain the envy of the world. These principles have allowed our economy to be the most productive, most innovative, most creative system, that has created income and employment only dreamed of in other parts of the world. One of these principles is property rights. But it seems that some corporate managers have forgotten that the companies they run are not their personal property to operate however they see fit or for their own benefit. The exuberance of the 1990s that Chairman Greenspan warned us about and the extraordinary income and wealth generated during that period, allowed for unethical persons in our business sector to exploit this time of growth for their own selfish purposes and to bend the rules for their own benefit. So as we pursue new rules to punish those who have betrayed a trust-- and we must--let us not allow the pendulum to swing so far that it jeopardizes the innovation and vitality of our economic system for the future. Rather than working against the principles that make our economic system so great, our actions should affirm these principles. I am angry, shocked and extremely concerned about the revelations that have emerged in the past 6 months concerning the accounting practices of a number of public companies. To operate efficiently our free market system requires a high level of honesty and trustworthiness among its participants, especially among its key decisionmakers. In the long run our economy--our stand of living--reflects not only our inventiveness and hard work but our moral character. Corporate executives have to be worthy of the key role they play. With all their wealth and high position comes responsibility. Sadly, some executives were not worthy of this responsibility. Restoring the public's trust is of paramount importance. America's system of corporate governance and its trust in our financial reporting mechanisms have been shaken and restoring this trust is of critical importance. It will take more than words to restore that confidence and trust. It will take something that I, Senator Dodd and others have been lecturing on for many years, and this is something not easily legislated. It will take a renewed awareness of the ethics of responsibility. It will take a reaffirmation that ``Character Counts.'' Reaffirming that ``Character Counts'' means not only encouraging our young people to live by the six pillars--trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship--but expecting that our corporate leaders adhere to these traits and conduct themselves accordingly. Cooking the books has hurt thousands and thousands of hard-working Americans. American companies must adhere to the highest standards of public accounting ethics. Despite these abuses, as I have said our economy remains strong and the vast majority of CEOs are honest and abide by the rules. Unfortunately, a few bad characters have tainted the reputation of our enterprise system. The President and the Congress are addressing reform. I will support these reform efforts that are aimed at regaining trust and confidence in our Nation's financial markets and ensure that American workers are protected from unscrupulous corporations. No violation of the public's trust can be tolerated. But I also believe more can be done, and this bill before us moves us in that direction. I support: Full and accurate disclosure: I endorse the SEC's proposals to require CEOs to certify that their financial statements completely and accurately reflect the true condition of the company. Trust and accountability: Corporate leaders must be held accountable for any abuse of public trust. I believe that executives should be required to return moneys they received as a result of fraudulent accounting practices, as embodied in the Senate bill. Independence: Boards of directors must exercise independent judgment and a substantial majority of board members must be independent of management. Auditing reform: Strong oversight of the accounting profession is essential if we are to ensure independence of auditors and credibility of the auditing process. Pension protection: I fully support steps that will protect the retirement savings of American workers. Workers should have freedom to diversify and monitor their own retirement funds, giving confidence that their investments will not fall prey to unethical executives. I urge the SEC to move forward with the implementation of its proposed reforms. And, I strongly believe that the NYSE and the NASDAQ must proceed to improve their listing standards. I support the reform that works to strengthen our free enterprise system. It is our obligation as a Congress and as a country to ensure that the unethical few that are causing hardship for so many hard-working Americans, be swiftly brought to justice and face jail time. We will restore faith in our economic system for it is the greatest in the world. I support passage of the Senate bill.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the Tres Rios High School Rodeo Association, which will soon host the 2002 National High School Finals Rodeo in Farmington, NM. The association, formed in cooperation with San Juan County and the cities of Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield, is rolling out the welcome mat for all to visit the beautiful Four Corners area of New Mexico for the July 22-28 competition. I join in welcoming the thousands of student athletes and spectators who will descend on Farmington to celebrate the athleticism associated with the rodeo competitions. Farmington, a burgeoning city that has already proven itself as an excellent host for sporting events with the annual Connie Mack World Series tournament, will be a wonderful setting for this rodeo. The Tres Rios High School Rodeo Association knows it is in a national spotlight for showcasing a richly blessed, multi-cultural region that has been cherished since the dawn of the ancient Anasazi and Navajo cultures. Just last month, I had the pleasure of meeting with students from San Juan County who briefed me on their work to host this national competition. Their enthusiasm and excitement was contagious, and I share in their anticipation for hosting the rodeo in northwest New Mexico. This is a great opportunity for the youth in the area to showcase their talents, and an excellent chance to boost the Four Corners area economy. This year's competition is a continuation of a tradition begun in 1949 in Halletsville, TX, with the first National Championship Rodeo. That contest laid the foundation for what became the National Championship High School Rodeo Association. New Mexico was one of the first five charter members. Subsequently, in 1961, this association was incorporated into the National High School Rodeo Association and included 20 states. Today, they have grown to include 39 States and two foreign countries. Every year, the National High School Rodeo Association holds a National High School Finals Rodeo. New Mexico has been the proud host of three previous finals, and is proudly hosting the 2002 and 2003 competitions at the San Juan County Fairgrounds. The National High School Rodeo Association serves to challenge high school students to keep alive a rich tradition of Western life through rodeo competitions. By providing a competitive environment, participants learn the spirit of sportsmanship and grow as individuals. In addition, participation in the association promotes student achievement and provides opportunities for college scholarships and further professional development. I believe their efforts at furthering student education bodes well for the association, and I applaud them for impacting young lives in such a positive manner. Being selected as a host site is an honor, and I commend the Tres Rios High School Rodeo Association, San Juan County, the cities of Farmington, Aztec and Bloomfield, and everyone associated with the event for their efforts to prepare for the National High School Finals Rodeo. I wish all participants in the rodeo the best of luck.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the effects of a natural disaster that lingers across much of the west, drought. There is not a segment of the New Mexico population that will not be touched, in 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 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. Most of the National Forests in New Mexico are closed to the public. This has added to 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 has had to close because it runs through National Forest system lands and the fear that the railroad might spark and start a wildfire is a threat to 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 run off 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. A recent article in the New York Times accurately depicts the dire situation. It talks about how gardening in a desert is challenging, especially during a drought and at a time of mandatory water restrictions. The article went on to talk about people spray painting plastic flowers and artificial turf, while also using freeze dried plants to beautify porches and other areas. Santa Fe is only one of the numerous municipalities that have imposed restrictions on water use. The article also notes that 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. A second article appearing in the Albuquerque Journal, referenced a ``drought reduction'' cattle sale. The sale took place last week on the edge of the Navajo reservation. While most livestock sales generally take place on the reservation during September and October, this year emergency sales are being held almost every weekend. 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 business, whether they are actually having to refrain from watering their own lawns and washing their cars to looking for alternative recreational opportunities this summer, 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. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles referenced in my remarks be printed in the Record. [From the New York Times, July 8, 2002] In Santa Fe, It's Time to Paint the Plants Gardening in a desert is challenging. Gardening in a desert in a drought is tough. Gardening in a desert in a drought at a time of mandatory water restrictions is ridiculous. It's enough to make a hard-core gardener break out the spray paint and feather dusters. Why? To brighten the artificial turf and plastic flowers, of course, and to keep the cobwebs off the freeze-dried evergreens. ``Isn't this a hoot?'' said Kay Hendricks, a 70-year-old interior designer who cheerfully pointed out a now-dead wisteria vine as she stuffed a plastic sprig of purple lavender into a pot of freshly painted silk red flowers. ``A little red paint will make any flower a geranium.'' In a whirlwind tour of her home, Ms. Hendricks showed off a bouquet of what may have once been silk purple zinnias, now painted red to match an American flag hanging on her garage; a potted four-foot-tall plastic cactus with fake thorns; and English ivy with fake dewdrops draped from another pot. With drought gripping several Western states this summer, Santa Fe is one of a number of municipalities that have instituted mandatory restrictions on lawn watering, car washing and other uses of water. The restrictions are enforced by ``water police,'' who can impose steep fines and even decrease water flows to scofflaws' homes. Phone lines have been set up so people can report wasteful neighbors to city officials. Fines for illegal watering here start at $20 and go up to $200 after the fourth offense, and then stay at $200 for each repeated violation. ``There is a guilt to watering things,'' said Mary Thomas, manager of the American Country Collection furniture store in downtown Santa Fe. She used to plant colorful annuals in pots outside her store each spring, but now she has 18 freeze- dried miniature evergreens instead. ``They don't have to be watered and we can paint them if they lose their color,'' she said. Ms. Thomas said her parents liked the freeze-dried trees so much that they bought some for their own patio. The city 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. Reservoirs that the city relies on for water are at 23 percent of normal capacity, and the last substantial rain was in late January, said Chandra Marsh, a water conservation educator and compliance specialist with the City of Santa Fe Water Department. Not every plant here is fake or dead. Established low-water perennials are surviving, and hollyhocks and lilies can be seen blooming here and there. But, Ms. Marsh said, it is difficult to establish many plants without regular watering. It seems as if everyone in this town is either adding a few silk and plastic plants to their yards, or knows someone who is doing so while letting the grass die in the baking dry heat. Mary Branham, 71, has switched from pots with nearly 200 red geraniums to all silk and plastic plants and flowers this year. ``It seemed irresponsible even when we can water once a week,'' she said. Ms. Branham's terra cotta pots now have blue hydrangeas, ornamental grasses, orange marigolds and pink and purple lilacs ``planted'' in the soil. She said she now dusts her flowers twice a week.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, great endeavors begin with a vision. Last fall, I joined the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the Army Corps of Engineers in unveiling a vision that would rehabilitate and restore the Rio Grande Bosque in Albuquerque, NM. Today, I rise to introduce a bill that will make that vision a reality. Since last fall, the Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken the task of conducting a feasibility study so that we might gain a better understanding of how best to rehabilitate and restore this beautiful Albuquerque green belt. I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District owns this vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner in identifying areas for non-native species and other environmental restoration work. Additionally, MRGCD continues to work on the development and implementation of an educational campaign for local public schools on the importance of the Bosque. Finally, MRGCD has continually worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone. Last year I committed to requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor. I have done that and the plan is well underway. This bill that I introduce today is the next step in following through on this project. Specifically, this bill authorizes $75 million dollars to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection and recreation along the Middle Rio Grande. Having grown up in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure. I have been very involved in Bosque restoration since 1991 and I commend the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, all along the river. This new vision, specific to the Albuquerque Corridor, builds on that idea and is a logical complement to these previous efforts as well as towards Bosque revitalization, restoration and recovery along the entire Rio Grande river. This area was designated as a State park many years ago. As many of you know, this area has been overrun by non-native vegetation, peppered with graffiti, cluttered with trash and as we saw this past year, has become more susceptible to fire. I want to ensure that the Albuquerque corridor, which is a unique and irreplaceable part of the desert Southwest's ecosystem, is preserved for generations to come. A healthy ecosystem is key to such things as the protection of threatened species and overall river flow. We know that the river in this area is vital habitat for many species, including the endangered Rio Grande Silvery minnow. Efforts reducing non-native species, while protecting all from the possibility of devastating wildfire, will also improve the flow of the river and habitat for its many species. At the same time, the Bosque is a natural green belt through Albuquerque. This area should be made beautiful and more accessible to the public for enjoyment. I am grateful that all parties have come together and that I can be a part of making this vision a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't need the Senator to yield for a question, but I will talk for a moment. Sometime yesterday I raised this issue when most of the Republican Senators were in a meeting. It seemed, from the feedback, that most of them agreed with the comments that were made then. Essentially, we don't often have this situation, but what really happened--I used the word ``yesterday''--the supplemental has been around here for so long that it has run into a new problem. It ran into the problem of forest fires--huge ones--and into flooding that has been described by those who come from States where flooding has occurred. But there is no question that the forest fires and the floods, because they came a long time after these urgent supplementals, should have cleared it. In normal times you would be beyond the supplemental and you would be waiting for something else; but the supplemental bumped right into the fires and the floods, it took so long to get its rightful place here on the Senate floor. It didn't seem to be very urgent when it took 2 months to get done. But now we want to try to live by the facts the White House put into the budget before this new set of facts occurred. After that meeting yesterday, I was very pleased to note that the distinguished Republican leader joined with us and submitted to the White House, to the Budget Director for the executive branch the fact that this was going to happen sooner or later, that most of the people we had talked to and that he had talked to--and shortly thereafter we started talking with Democrats--that there was going to be substantial support, if not 100 percent. So I am pleased that we are at a point where we are going to put this amendment on one of the bills. I understand our distinguished ranking member of Appropriations has concurred with others and doesn't want it put on the supplemental. That is all right with me, provided we are standing in line with commitments from those who we need commitments from, that the fire and flood money will be on the next appropriations bill that comes by. Since I don't want to take additional time, I assume that is where we are. I will ask the Senator from Nevada a question: Are we now at a point where we are going to decide on which appropriations bill we are going to be free to put the emergency language for the floods and the fires?

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I said yesterday that I do not recall--I have been here a few years longer than the Senator from Nevada--a situation where we would not pay for an emergency of forest fires and the damages and costs that ensued. Frankly, there are a lot of people in the West, particularly in Nevada and my State, who have seen these fires and now hear on the television that the Forest Service does not have money in its budget to pay for them. They do. They are borrowing from another account. As the Senator said and I have said, they are going to get reimbursed shortly. The sooner we do it, the sooner we keep faith with the hundreds of thousands of people in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado who have been watching. It would be good if it is sooner rather than later. While we are paying for many things, we should pay for their account also. I assume that is what you are going to try to do in the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I say to those who want to make sure the supplemental not only passes but is signed, the Senator from New Mexico is on their side. I am with them. I am certainly not going to do anything to delay that, although it does seem strange to this Senator, an urgent supplemental, which is intended for urgent supplemental needs, would have to be isolated from this need because some kind of arrangement has been made. The arrangement comes very late, but it is an effort to get the bill done and to get the important parties to agree. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, great endeavors begin with a vision. Last fall, I joined the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the Army Corps of Engineers in unveiling a vision that would rehabilitate and restore the Rio Grande Bosque in Albuquerque, NM. Today, I rise to introduce a bill that will make that vision a reality. Since last fall, the Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken the task of conducting a feasibility study so that we might gain a better understanding of how best to rehabilitate and restore this beautiful Albuquerque green belt. I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District owns this vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner in identifying areas for non-native species and other environmental restoration work. Additionally, MRGCD continues to work on the development and implementation of an educational campaign for local public schools on the importance of the Bosque. Finally, MRGCD has continually worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone. Last year I committed to requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor. I have done that and the plan is well underway. This bill that I introduce today is the next step in following through on this project. Specifically, this bill authorizes $75 million dollars to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection and recreation along the Middle Rio Grande. Having grown up in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure. I have been very involved in Bosque restoration since 1991 and I commend the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, all along the river. This new vision, specific to the Albuquerque Corridor, builds on that idea and is a logical complement to these previous efforts as well as towards Bosque revitalization, restoration and recovery along the entire Rio Grande river. This area was designated as a State park many years ago. As many of you know, this area has been overrun by non-native vegetation, peppered with graffiti, cluttered with trash and as we saw this past year, has become more susceptible to fire. I want to ensure that the Albuquerque corridor, which is a unique and irreplaceable part of the desert Southwest's ecosystem, is preserved for generations to come. A healthy ecosystem is key to such things as the protection of threatened species and overall river flow. We know that the river in this area is vital habitat for many species, including the endangered Rio Grande Silvery minnow. Efforts reducing non-native species, while protecting all from the possibility of devastating wildfire, will also improve the flow of the river and habitat for its many species. At the same time, the Bosque is a natural green belt through Albuquerque. This area should be made beautiful and more accessible to the public for enjoyment. I am grateful that all parties have come together and that I can be a part of making this vision a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, for a couple of weeks, every time Americans look at their TV screen, they see a huge fire, a piece of America burning. Forests in our Southwest and West are on fire. We have seen huge fires in the State of Arizona, small but significant fires in New Mexico, and very large fires in the State of Colorado. I do not want to discuss the why of the fires today, but I am very hopeful that another year will not pass in the Congress, at least the Senate, without a thorough analysis and research by a committee of Congress on why our forests are burning. Some say it is natural. Others say it is a terrible management mistake. They claim that we have gone along without pruning, thinning, or taking care of forests and are inviting either manmade fires, lightning, or some kind of natural fire starter. We have a very serious problem with reference to our national forests and these fires. So far this year, over 3 million acres have burned, and the fire season is not yet over. This is 1 million acres more than the devastating 2000 fire season and twice the 10-year average. So far, twice the 10-year fire average has already occurred in our forests! This fire season has had a detrimental impact on communities throughout the West and Southwest, disrupting thousands of people's lives, hurting the economies in ways we cannot measure, and destroying homes and property. We must act in each instance to put out the fires, to contain them, and, yes, after that, provide whatever help we can to those suffering. While the fires burn, there are people who need help. There are people in both the BLM and the Agriculture Department who are busy, day by day, using millions and millions of dollars, which we have provided. I suggest today that the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture indicate they will have to move resources from all kinds of activities that are supposed to occur during the rest of this year over into fire accounts because nobody expected such a huge, onerous, and costly fire season. The Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture are about $850 million short for 2002. Those managing the bills, and the White House, should know it is a very difficult situation to let a supplemental catch up with the problem. That is what happened here. We have a supplemental appropriations bill waiting around. Now we have a new problem that did not exist when the supplemental started--reimbursement to the Departments of our Government that have used their money to pay for the forest fires that are burning down America. We ought to either find a place for that amendment on the supplemental or in some way accommodate it. We always say if it is an American problem, we will pay for it. If it is an earthquake, we pay for it. If it is a tornado, we pay for it. That is the collective insurance of America that we will pay for those emergencies, either on the supplemental or on the Interior appropriations bill, neither of which at this moment has money for these forest fires--neither bill, neither the supplemental nor the full yearly appropriation bill. The whole of next year is ready to be appropriated without the fire money in it. So we need to provide the money the way I see it. It has been waiting long enough. I know the President does not want the supplemental over a certain amount. I will accommodate to arrange the additional funding, however he and others in the appropriations process and the Congress desire. I repeat, the money that has been used to fight the forest fires has come out of various and sundry accounts, including the accounts for rehabilitation and restoration of burned lands. For those in the West who are suffering from these fires, we will get a bill ready. I close by saying there is also a growing problem in Texas and other States regarding excessive water. The floods have caught up with this supplemental. I have been discussing the issue with the Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison. I have also talked to Senator Gramm. We will be asking that they present their water issues, and maybe we can provide funding on one emergency supplemental bill to the extent it is necessary to accommodate the emergencies of our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Is that the House or the Budget Committee chairman?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, since I like cappuccinos, it would be better than some other things we might buy. In any event, the Senator from Kansas is going to speak shortly, and I will try not to go too long. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, I have been listening, and not to your entire speech, but I say the Senator from New Mexico agrees with some of what you said. But I would not expect you to lay the blame in Congress where the blame lies in Congress. I believe much of the delay on everything is attributable to the fact that the majority party has not yet as of this day produced a budget. So if we want to talk about delays, as chairman of the Budget Committee, my good friend, you do not know what number to mark to. Nobody has yet told you how many dollars you have to spend. If the budget does anything, it starts with that. It also ropes in, in some good and major way, the entitlements that are supposed to come up the remainder of this year and next year. We do not have that around either. That is one of the reasons we keep getting 60 votes for every proposal that might be something that we ought to be considering for the American people. It is given an added burden because we do not have a budget. So I have said this, not as many times as some have urged me to say it, but I have said we need a budget. I do not know if we need it now--it is almost August--but I do believe we have to remind ourselves that whether we like the budget process or not, whether it will be in existence next year, we will know in advance. But as part of the process we go through, clearly it is not good for the American people that it not be done. It causes an awful lot of problems. It can cause us to spend an awful lot of money. It might indeed cause us to be behind schedule on things and we ought not be, especially in an election year when we have to tear ourselves away from an election, a number of the Senators do, plus the rest of the elections in our country.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is that the House or the budget chairman?

Mr. DOMENICI. I did not intend to get into a debate about the 27 years of budgets that I have been part of in the Senate. I merely call to the attention that right now, this year--we did get a budget last year. We did not get it out of committee, but the statute did not require that. I do not want to debate that issue. I merely mentioned that my good friend was producing a litany of things that were causing the delay, and I thought it was a little bit lopsided toward blaming the administration for the delays. A lot of them are our fault, starting with the fact that we do not have a budget. Yes, the President has a different approach to what he wants to use the money for than we do, but we better get on with it. It is not too much different than most Presidents in sending us their budgets, and the sooner we get on with facing up to our responsibility the better we are. We have been sitting around waiting for somebody else--and it was not the President--for a long time in the Senate, as time ran buy and the appropriations were needed. We are going to get them done just like we do every other year. I used to think because it got late and because I was worried we were not in session, that we would not get it done. We will get it some way or another. We always have. We have been late. We have had partial passages of supplementals and then we have had other ways of putting two or three bills together, all of which should not happen. But if you need to do them, you need to do them. That will be the case this year, too, I hope. I hope it will be done expeditiously. Now, I want to move to the subject I came to the floor about.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am glad to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. This colloquy will not come off of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, am I limited by a certain amount of time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, you just added another one. You went to the 60. So I have to go to the 60.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not here as much as the Senator and I slip every now and then.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is pretty hard to get that out of your head, but I think I have the floor now. Is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought I was speaking earlier. I would like 10 to 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Did we not have a certain amount that some of our Senators--

Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.