Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes to make an announcement with reference to committee work in the Senate.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I have an announcement on behalf of myself and Chairman Billy Tauzin from the House of Representatives. We have scheduled a conference meeting for Tuesday morning. The tax writers should have completed their work on tax provisions in time to meet that schedule. We will provide conference language to all House and Senate conferees, Republican and Democrat, 48 hours in advance of the conference. We plan to make the language public 48 hours before the conference. We see no reason that final passage of this bill cannot occur soon after the conference. Members of Congress have spent the past 3 years negotiating the resolution of a difficult regional issue and many national issues that pertain to energy and America's future. We are on the verge of completing work on a comprehensive Energy bill for the first time since 1992. This Senator believes this bill is even more significant than the 1992 bill. To repeat, Chairman Billy Tauzin and myself, as chairman of our committee in the Senate, are announcing we will have a meeting of the conferees on the Energy bill on October 28, Tuesday, 10 a.m., in Dirksen 106. We have scheduled this conference for Tuesday morning, but implicit in my statement is that the tax writers have not completed their work on the tax provisions, but the two chairmen are suggesting in this announcement they should have their work completed in time for us to release that with the conference report, since it is part of it, without which there is not a conference, without which we do not know whether the rest of the work is valid or has to be changed. Everyone who is interested at the leadership level is working to get this tax provision done. I want to repeat, it is not done. We do expect it to be done in time for this announcement to be effective.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to support adoption of the conference report to accompany the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.'' I compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum. He has carried this bill and I offer him my congratulations for his efforts in this regard. I have always been a supporter of the rights of the unborn. And, after many years of debate on this issue, I am very pleased that this body is going to pass this measure, and that the President has said he will sign it. In March, I came to the floor and I discussed this very issue. At that time, I quoted one of our very distinguished former colleagues, Mr. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan described the Partial Birth Abortion procedure as follows: I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus. What on Earth is this procedure? That is what the distinguished Senator from New York said. And, the Senator was right. This debate is not about Roe v. Wade; this is not a pro-life or pro-choice vote. This debate is about humanity and necessity. The procedure of partial- birth abortion, to put it candidly, is cruel and inhumane. The issue here today is whether we should prohibit a form of abortion that borders on infanticide. As Senator Moynihan said, ``what on Earth is this procedure?'' By now, many Americans are uncomfortably aware of the details of a partial-birth abortion. They have heard the testimony of doctors who perform this procedure and nurses who witness it. They have also most likely seen information ads or read descriptions of the procedure. Maybe they have even watched us debate the issue on prior occasions. I will not go through the details of the procedure. I will only say that at a minimum it is cruel and inhumane, and when this debate is completed, I hope that the Senate will take a stand and ban a procedure that diminishes the life of a child that has been born and has exited the uterus. This debate today is about protecting a fetus, a baby, a life that is now destroyed in a cruel and inhumane way. It is about a life that is unnecessarily destroyed and it need not happen. We are not really talking about banning abortion here, we are talking about banning a form of infanticide and it is for this reason that I will gladly vote in favor of the ``Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003.''

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman spoke to an issue to which I would like to respond.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Bingaman that I heard what he said. He and I have talked a number of times. I would like to share with him the following so there is no misunderstanding. I have taken the position--although I have not been able to tell him every day and I have not issued a release about it every day--that the Senator must have the bill for 24 full hours prior to markup. We have taken that position with our leadership and with everyone who has to do with the hierarchy of this bill. That is where we are. That will be enforced. I now have the support I need for that to happen. Secondly, I will do my very best to get you the portion of the bill that you would like to see on electricity even before that. I am working very hard on seeing if I can do that. There are a whole lot of people who want to look at that provision, and I want to get it to you as soon as possible. I thank the Senator for his comments, and I understand his concern. I hope that, in the end, whatever your concerns are for that bill--let's hope you are for it, but I hope you will conclude that you have had a chance to review everything and offer amendments. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Mississippi Mr. Cochran. First, on the way to the floor, something very interesting happened to this bill. The Parliamentarian read it and said: Chairman Domenici-- who had been waiting anxiously to do this bill--you don't have jurisdiction the way the bill is written and said the Agriculture Committee did. For a little while I had a sourpuss look on me until I found out that, indeed, we were fortunate because Senator Thad Cochran and his committee, letting us help him, did a magnificent job. In fact, I can say so there will be no doubt on the record that they did a better job than we could have. So I am very pleased the bill came roundabout that way. As always happens in a bill of this type, you cannot win on the floor with just a bill produced by committee because there are Senators who are not on any of the committees of jurisdiction who have big interests in the bill. Guess what. Those Senators are now supporting this bill. We must have somebody around here who is against this bill. Senator Wyden is for it. He has had some of the biggest problems with forests and forest fires in his State of any Senator. We met under Senator Cochran's leadership for weeks. And Senator Wyden is for this bill. Surely, he is not for not bringing up this bill. Whoever is for not bringing it up--I don't understand. California has so much of everything that we sometimes forget they have huge forests and huge forest fires, and it burns a lot of things down. They need to fix the law. Guess what. She is not on the Agriculture Committee. Right?

Mr. DOMENICI. So she came in and said: Let me help. She went to meeting after meeting. Of course, they invited me and my staff. I had more than a few things to do, and I probably was there less than the Senators I just mentioned, but I came. I was one who pursued it and pushed it. On the Democrat side of the Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, was there all the time. She came to these meetings and she is for it. Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, a State with huge problems, he was there. He is for it. Everybody knows the Senator from New Mexico is for it. I have been trying to do this for 10 or 12 years. I got one big bill through that nobody thought could happen in the midst of the forest fires. It passed in an amendment on the floor. We got $250 million times 2--that is $500 million--for each agency. We named that bill ``happy forests.'' We named it happy forests because we thought if it works, these forests that cannot see sunlight may see sunlight and they might be happy when they look up at the sun. So I nicknamed the bill the happy forests, with the trees of America once again being unclogged. The clogging makes the trees limp but also makes them burn like wildfire. We got that one through and it did a lot of good, but we are stuck with the problem that this bill tries to solve; namely, we cannot get anything done in a reasonable period of time. That is the issue. We do not have to talk about the fancy words, jurisdiction, courts, and all of that. The truth is, for those who do not want things to happen, they have an inordinate amount of time that they can make everybody waste without doing anything. At least in this bill, for instance, if there is an infested forest--and I do not know anyone that does not have one around--they are ugly, they burn like tinder, and at least in this bill that would be handled very expeditiously. People wonder why that is not the case right now. In a few months, why can't there be a contract to cut those trees down? Well, those kind of things are getting fixed in this bill. I am grateful to have these few minutes. I am thankful that this bill went to the Agriculture Committee. The staff did most of the work, and I am very grateful the outsiders came in and helped. I do not want to fail to mention, on the Republican side, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, John McCain, who was not on the committee of jurisdiction, also came with his competent staff. They presented their views and some of the bill was adjusted their way. So I say to the leadership, I hope when some Senators come and say let's delay this bill, let's not take it up, I hope they would ask, what is this about? When are we going to do it? When are we going to stop destroying our forests or at least do some positive things that we all know are right? I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment requires reporting on the reconstruction of Iraq. This amendment ensures congressional oversight for the $20.3 billion portion of the supplemental bill designated for the reconstruction of Iraq. As I look at what is going on in Iraq, I see tremendous progress and good that is taking place. Unfortunately, the media have not seen fit to report on these good things and the fact that our men and women there are making life better for the Iraqi people. But my amendment puts in place a way to measure that progress so as to clearly show the American people what we are doing. It requires that the plan for reconstruction is regularly reported so Americans can plainly see that Iraq is moving toward independence and toward a day when our troops will come home. I have been fortunate enough to talk to people in Iraq with firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground. Based on my conversations with these individuals, it seems to me there are a few critical elements that must be met in order to achieve the kinds of things we want. For example--we need to get the electricity working. We also need to get the water running. We need to get the oil pumping, and the police trained. I believe improving these services is the key to a new civil society in Iraq, and I think Mr. Bremer is working very hard to make them happen. My amendment gives clarity for measuring the progress that is being made in these areas because it calls for the reporting of specific timelines and objectives relating to that progress. In a word, this amendment ensures accountability--accountability through reporting requirements. And I would submit that these are substantially detailed reporting requirements and that they are fair requirements. For example, my amendment contains provisions such as submission of a ``master plan'' for reconstruction efforts within 60 days of enactment. Also, it requires submission of subsequent reports every 60 days thereafter detailing how funds have been expended and how they will be expended. Furthermore, these reporting requirements cover many specific issues, such as a description of expenditures and the progress made in restoring basic services such as water, electricity, sewer and oil infrastructure; a description of the goals to be achieved by these expenditures; a description of the roles of foreign governments and international organizations in the Iraq reconstruction efforts; and a description of the progress made toward securing Iraqi democracy. This is a very fair amendment because it respects the Constitution by giving the executive branch primacy in the area of foreign affairs policymaking, while at the same time giving Congress appropriate oversight of the funds used for implementing that policy. I also think this is a very important amendment because it satisfies the concerns of many Senators--especially in the area of submitting a clear plan that has guideposts for measuring progress. It is my hope that Senators will support this amendment that will ensure funds are spent wisely and in a way that will hasten the day when our troops will come home.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Nickles, before he yields the floor, would just discuss this with me and answer a couple of questions.

Mr. DOMENICI. As the Senator spoke, it dawned on me that none of this debt would be worth 2 cents if the United States had not done what we did.

Mr. DOMENICI. Where would they get the money, if the United States were not involved in having invaded Iraq, trying to free them and then trying to put their economy back? This debt here would not be worth the matches that it would take to burn it. So I don't think you are just offering a resolution giving some kindly advice. It seems to me you are expressing a reality that these countries ought to be very serious before they try to extract from new Iraq, old Iraq's debt when it would be absolutely useless, based upon the country they lent the money to, and the dictator to whom they lent the money. Right?

Mr. DOMENICI. So the point of it is that whatever they are having this debtor's conference for, people ought to be thinking about what they are going to be discussing and we ought to be thinking about how we are going to respond. You are offering some kind advice to us, what we ought to be saying, right? We ought to be thinking: Well, how long has it been since we have been involved in trying to make this country have some money and have it worthwhile? How many billions have we spent? And that I am for. How many more are we going to spend? And they would have the audacity to come to some kind of conference and say, put us on this debtors list; we will take 50 cents on a dollar. Yes, 50 cents on the dollar maybe 30 years from now, or 50, when everything that has gone into making this country alive again has been taken care of. There are a lot of messages from this simple resolution to these countries. In simplest terms: Forget about it. But in more sophisticated terms, the truth is, but for America, what you got is worth nothing. That is what I think is important about the resolution. I think, rather than just being a typical one that we offer as a resolution, I think it is a very important sense of those of us who are sharing, with very few countries, the burden of trying to help that country. Look at all those countries. Where have they been when we have been going through all this? They have been offering nice words, maybe; call the President and say hello. Maybe they have been sending a little postcard. They haven't put up anything yet. Some of them are thinking about it. I hope they keep thinking.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I only have a minute. I want you to take a trip with me. I want you to take a trip to Iraq. The first thing we are going to do is walk up to a soldier. His name is Joe Chavis. We are going to say: Hi, Joe, how are you? I see that tank of yours. It needs repairing. Hey, Joe, that electric line isn't working and those kids don't have any electricity. Which do you think we ought to do: Fix your tank or fix the electricity? Sergeant Chavis says: Fix the electricity, Senator. I walked down the road a little bit and I saw another soldier, a woman who was there in military uniform. I said: Ma'am, I understand that you don't have the vests that you need to protect yourself. But I also noticed over there a schoolhouse is broken down and it needs fixing. I said: What do you need most? She said: Fix the schoolhouse. I did that five times. Every time the soldier said: Fix whatever it is, give them whatever it is and wait on me. I can wait. I think you should all understand that is what is going on. If we don't do that, they will be there forever. That is why they are saying, fix the other things and don't worry so much about us.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend Senator Dodd to introduce a resolution regarding ``National Character Counts Week.'' Our resolution says the week of October 19 of this year will be known across the country as ``National Character Counts Week.'' Nearly a century ago President Theodore Roosevelt said the following about character: Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike. I would submit that character truly does transcend time as well as religious, cultural, political, and socio-economic barriers. I believe our country is having a renewed focus on character and this sends a wonderful message to Americans, and will help those of us involved in character education reinvigorate our efforts to get communities and schools involved. I say that because a number of years ago we started this approach to character education called ``Character Counts.'' Senators Nunn, Dodd, and I first introduced the resolution that has now passed the Senate on innumerable occasions. The resolution simply declares that for all of America, one week during the year will be known as ``National Character Counts Week.'' Frankly, we hear a lot about how we should help our young people growing up in this often difficult society. However, I believe the key is finding those ideas and programs that work. We all understand that there are certain people who have the primary responsibility to care for our children like mothers, fathers, siblings, and grandparents. We are not in any way talking about negating that responsibility of raising a child with good values. However, we have found the teachers in our schools have been yearning for something they could teach our children that for some reason had been eliminated from both the public and private school agenda curriculum. It is sometimes referred to as character education. I choose to speak about the ``Character Counts'' program that is being used in many public schools in our country, and certainly in my State of New Mexico where teachers embrace six pillars of character. The values comprising the six pillars are everyday concepts that Americans across this land wish their children would have and hope America will keep. They are simply: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. They transcend political and social barriers and are central to the ideals on which this Nation was built. As a matter of fact, I think they are central and basic to any nation that survives for any long period of history. As Plato once said: A country without character is a country that's doomed and the only way a country can have character is if the individual citizens in the country have character. I could speak for hours about the 200,000 New Mexico schoolchildren in public, private and parochial schools learning about good character. About 90 percent of the grade school children, and a significant portion of the others, are now participating in character education programs that simply and profoundly bring them into contact with each of these pillars one month at a time. So if you walk the halls of a grade school in Albuquerque, you might see a sign outside that says, ``This Is Responsibility Month.'' And all the young people will be discussing the concept of responsibility in their classrooms, and they will put up posters saying, ``Responsibility Counts.'' At the end of that month they may have an assembly where responsibility will be discussed by all the kids, and awards will be given to those demonstrating the most responsibility. The next month it might be ``respect.'' The month after that it might be ``caring.'' I could go on for quite some time talking about Character Counts in New Mexico. The bottom line is that I believe it is working in New Mexico and other parts of the country. Consequently, I think we need to salute the efforts already underway and encourage even more character education across our country. So today, Senator Dodd and I are here to introduce a resolution to accomplish just that and hopefully our renewed effort will bring together even more communities to ensure that character education is a part of every child's life. I hope that my colleagues will support this effort.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is critical to rural America and long overdue. My bill would help to ensure that our rural communities continue to thrive and flourish by guaranteeing a safe, reliable water supply. There is no comprehensive program in existence that rural communities can tap into to meet increasing demands for rural water infrastructure. My bill will remedy this problem by creating such a program within the Department of the Interior, specifically in the Bureau of Reclamation. My bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a competitive program to plan, design, and construct rural water supply projects in conjunction with non-Federal local entities. To date, there is no Federal program specifically in place with the purpose of meeting the rural water needs of communities and tribes. As a result, we either offer piece meal help through EPA grants or communities turn to other programs that were originally designed for other purposes. In the State of New Mexico alone, there are numerous projects that would benefit from a program such as the one I propose in this bill. Let me just share one example with you--the community of Chimayo, NM. Chimayo is in northern New Mexico tucked in the foothills of the beautiful Sangre de Christo Mountains. This historic and picturesque community is over 400 years old. Today, the small community of less than 3000 people is forced to haul water because they lack adequate infrastructure to service their homes. I know that other States in the west have communities with similar needs. My bill requires the Secretary to look at whether or not a community has an urgent and compelling need, whether construction of a rural water system would help alleviate future water supply shortages, whether it would help improve health of water quality to name just a few. Additionally, my bill is based on the communities capability to pay. Again, I will speak about New Mexico where many of these communities are among the poorest. Yet, I don't believe that should preclude them from the most basic resource--a safe and reliable drinking water supply. I know that many are aware of the on-going drought conditions in the west. Our best experts have predicted that this will only get worse. Many of America's rural communities are being hit the hardest by these worsening drought conditions. I believe my bill goes a long way in helping these already struggling communities. This issue is of such huge importance to me, that I intend to ask Senator Murkowski to hold a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing on this bill as early as next week. We have critical needs that need to be addressed and I urge my fellow Senators to help ensure that we can indeed meet them. 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 pay tribute to the contributions of Hispanic Americans to New Mexico and our country. I would like to focus my remarks today particularly on the representation of Hispanic Americans in the Federal judiciary. Hispanics are currently dramatically underrepresented in our Nation's judiciary, making up only 3.8 percent of Federal judges while comprising 14 percent of our country's population. New Mexico leads the Nation with the highest Hispanic population percentage of any State, nearly 43 percent. As New Mexico's senior Senator, I am proud to have played a strong role in recommending Hispanic nominees for the Federal bench, and am even prouder that these recommendations have been accepted. Soon, three of the seven judges serving on U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico will be Hispanic. Of the last five nominations made by President Bush to this court, all based on my recommendations, two were Hispanic women: Judge Christina Armijo, confirmed in November 2001, and Judith Herrera, nominated last month. Judge Armijo, formerly a judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals, brings a great deal of judicial experience and a history of public service to the Federal bench in New Mexico. A 1975 graduate of the UNM School of Law, she was an attorney and public defender before joining the Court of Appeals. Ms. Herrera, a distinguished attorney from Santa Fe, has experience in the public sector as a University of New Mexico regent from 1999 to 2003, a Santa Fe City Councilor from 1981 to 1986, and as an assistant district attorney. She has been an attorney with the Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer firm in Santa Fe since 1987. She was a member of the New Mexico Economic Development Commission from 1998 to 2000, and is a current member of the Federal Magistrate Merit Selection Commission. She also served as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of St. Vincent Hospital from 1991 to 2000. I know that she will serve her country well, and that her appointment is a step in the right direction to ensure that New Mexico's Federal bench better reflects the composition of our population. I have great hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee and then the full Senate will confirm her expeditiously. While New Mexico's Federal courts present a stronger-than-average picture of Hispanic representation, there is another story with a more dismal ending in the case of Miguel Estrada, who if confirmed, would have been the first Hispanic judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a sad day for our Federal judiciary and for Hispanic Americans when Mr. Estrada decided to withdraw his nomination after Senate Democrats prevented an up-or-down vote, despite seven attempts by Republican leadership to end debate. I am still outraged that a purely partisan filibuster prevented this well-qualified Hispanic American from serving his country on the Federal bench. At this time when we seek to honor Hispanic heritage, I invite my Senate colleagues to send the right message to all those who aspire to public service or seek to achieve their goals in this country: through hard work, honesty, and integrity, it is possible to overcome any barrier and succeed on your own merit. To me, this means giving qualified nominees a fair chance to succeed. I appreciate the qualified Hispanic Americans leading the way through their service on the Federal bench in New Mexico, and look forward to greater representation of Hispanics throughout the Federal judiciary.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is critical to rural America and long overdue. My bill would help to ensure that our rural communities continue to thrive and flourish by guaranteeing a safe, reliable water supply. There is no comprehensive program in existence that rural communities can tap into to meet increasing demands for rural water infrastructure. My bill will remedy this problem by creating such a program within the Department of the Interior, specifically in the Bureau of Reclamation. My bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a competitive program to plan, design, and construct rural water supply projects in conjunction with non-Federal local entities. To date, there is no Federal program specifically in place with the purpose of meeting the rural water needs of communities and tribes. As a result, we either offer piece meal help through EPA grants or communities turn to other programs that were originally designed for other purposes. In the State of New Mexico alone, there are numerous projects that would benefit from a program such as the one I propose in this bill. Let me just share one example with you--the community of Chimayo, NM. Chimayo is in northern New Mexico tucked in the foothills of the beautiful Sangre de Christo Mountains. This historic and picturesque community is over 400 years old. Today, the small community of less than 3000 people is forced to haul water because they lack adequate infrastructure to service their homes. I know that other States in the west have communities with similar needs. My bill requires the Secretary to look at whether or not a community has an urgent and compelling need, whether construction of a rural water system would help alleviate future water supply shortages, whether it would help improve health of water quality to name just a few. Additionally, my bill is based on the communities capability to pay. Again, I will speak about New Mexico where many of these communities are among the poorest. Yet, I don't believe that should preclude them from the most basic resource--a safe and reliable drinking water supply. I know that many are aware of the on-going drought conditions in the west. Our best experts have predicted that this will only get worse. Many of America's rural communities are being hit the hardest by these worsening drought conditions. I believe my bill goes a long way in helping these already struggling communities. This issue is of such huge importance to me, that I intend to ask Senator Murkowski to hold a Water and Power Subcommittee hearing on this bill as early as next week. We have critical needs that need to be addressed and I urge my fellow Senators to help ensure that we can indeed meet them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2003, a bill that will prohibit discrimination based on genetic information with respect to employment and health insurance. This bill represents much cooperation on the part of my colleagues, and I want to recognize Senators Snowe, Frist, Jeffords, Daschle, Kennedy, and also HELP Committee Chairman Gregg, for all the hard work done on this important issue. I am extremely pleased with today's passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, as it marks a great milestone for those of us involved in the Human Genome Project. It seems only a short time ago that the Human Genome Project was created as a joint effort between the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health. What progress we have made. In the last two years, there have been many events celebrating the completion of maps of the human genome. The genome map has brought a promise of improved health through revolutionary new treatments for illness and disease. The ultimate result of mapping the human genome is a complete genetic blueprint, a blueprint containing the most personal and most private information that any human being can have. We will now have a wealth of knowledge of how our countless individual traits are determined. And perhaps more important, we will have fundamental knowledge about the genes that can cause sickness and sometimes even death. Our personal and unique genetic information is the essence of our individuality. Our genetic blueprint is unique in each of us. However, as genetic testing becomes a more frequently used tool, we now must begin to address the ethical and legal issues regarding discrimination on the basis of genetic information. Questions regarding privacy and confidentiality, ownership and control, and consent for disclosure and use of genetic information need to be carefully considered. An unintended consequence of this new scientific revolution is the abuses that have arisen as a result of our gathering genetic information. Healthy people are being denied employment or health insurance because of their genetic information. By addressing the issue of nondiscrimination, we are affirming the right of an individual to have a measure of control over his or her personal genetic information. Genetic information only indicates a potential susceptibility to future illness. In fact, many individuals identified as having a hereditary condition are, indeed, healthy. Some people who test positive for genetic mutations associated with certain conditions may never develop those conditions at all. Genetic information does not necessarily diagnose disease; yet, many people in our society have been discriminated against because other people had access to information about their genes, and made determinations based on this information that the individual was too risky to insure or unsafe to employ. While the issue is complex, our objective is clear; people should be encouraged to seek genetic services and they should not fear its discriminatory use or disclosure. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is an important first step towards protecting access for all Americans to employment and health services regardless of their genetic inheritance. There is simply no place in the health insurance or employment sector for discrimination based solely upon genetic information.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce crucial legislation regarding the safety of America's Dams. Ensuring the safety of the Bureau of Reclamation's dams must be a national priority. One of the surest ways to protect the integrity of this existing infrastructure is to ensure that adequate funding is accessible to properly maintain and rehabilitate these great structures. The Bureau of Reclamation has existing authority that would allow them to expend approximately $974 million dollars on Safety of Dam Projects; but only $109 million dollars of this authorization remains uncommitted. By the end of fiscal year 2002, over 61 dam modifications had been completed under existing authority. Over the next several years, at least 46 projects have been identified as critical. Unfortunately, these projects alone represent an additional authorization need of close to $540 million. Thus, a huge gap exists and it is something we must correct. The bill that I am introducing today, would raise the current ceiling on the Safety of Dams Program to meet the additional $540 million needed and by so doing to meet the needs already identified by Reclamation in 11 of the 17 Reclamation States. Let me take a few moments to highlight exactly what it is I am talking about. The United States Bureau of Reclamation currently has reservoirs impounded by 457 dams and dikes. Of these structures, 362 dams and dikes would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail. These 362 structures, located at 252 different project facilities, form the core of Reclamation's Dam Safety Program. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950. Additionally, an estimated 90 percent of the dams were built before currently used state-of-the-art design and construction practices. A strong dam safety program must be maintained to identify potential adverse performance within Reclamation's inventory of aging dams and to carry out corrective actions expeditiously when unreasonable public risk is identified. I plan to take action on this measure during this Congress and I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring the safety and reliability of these dams. 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 crucial legislation regarding the safety of America's Dams. Ensuring the safety of the Bureau of Reclamation's dams must be a national priority. One of the surest ways to protect the integrity of this existing infrastructure is to ensure that adequate funding is accessible to properly maintain and rehabilitate these great structures. The Bureau of Reclamation has existing authority that would allow them to expend approximately $974 million dollars on Safety of Dam Projects; but only $109 million dollars of this authorization remains uncommitted. By the end of fiscal year 2002, over 61 dam modifications had been completed under existing authority. Over the next several years, at least 46 projects have been identified as critical. Unfortunately, these projects alone represent an additional authorization need of close to $540 million. Thus, a huge gap exists and it is something we must correct. The bill that I am introducing today, would raise the current ceiling on the Safety of Dams Program to meet the additional $540 million needed and by so doing to meet the needs already identified by Reclamation in 11 of the 17 Reclamation States. Let me take a few moments to highlight exactly what it is I am talking about. The United States Bureau of Reclamation currently has reservoirs impounded by 457 dams and dikes. Of these structures, 362 dams and dikes would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail. These 362 structures, located at 252 different project facilities, form the core of Reclamation's Dam Safety Program. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950. Additionally, an estimated 90 percent of the dams were built before currently used state-of-the-art design and construction practices. A strong dam safety program must be maintained to identify potential adverse performance within Reclamation's inventory of aging dams and to carry out corrective actions expeditiously when unreasonable public risk is identified. I plan to take action on this measure during this Congress and I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring the safety and reliability of these dams. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to comment on where we are with reference to the war. I was very pleased to read in the New York Times yesterday that a poll had been taken in Iraq. In fact, the New York Times reports so little good news about the theater of the war, I figured it had to be a poll or it wouldn't state anything good. The poll said two-thirds of the Iraqi people believed they were better off and that they would be better off in 5 years, having gotten rid of Saddam, rather than with him present. If you listen to all the news, you wonder whether the people of Iraq even care about our efforts to help or whether there are very many who are pleased to be part of this transition toward freedom. In addition, that same article said something rather phenomenal about the distinguished Ambassador who runs the American effort. The poll said--and the New York Times used two words--``remarkably positive''-- to characterize the 47 percent of the Iraqis who said he was doing a very good job. That was said almost with incredulity that it could be true, but it is, because we are doing a good job. We have been there 4\1/2\ months--not years. For us to already have achieved what has been done is borderline miraculous: Schools opened; hospitals opened; a council formed; a head of government there ready to move step by step toward democratization, with great leadership of the 25-member governing body, 17 of them Ph.D.s in the subjects of the ministries they run. The agriculture ministry is run by an agronomist of real class, the water problems handled by a hydrologist of high quality. These are the kinds of people working with us to put that country together. One of the reasons I think we should move ahead rapidly--and I don't know what rapidly means on this legislation. Does it mean Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday? I don't know--but we had better send a signal as soon as we can that we are there to get this job done. I had the privilege of asking questions yesterday of the two distinguished generals, the chief of staff of the military, General Myers, and the general in charge of the entire operation, General Abizaid, who speaks Arabic brilliantly. My questions to them were: Will we win this war, this conflict? Will we prevail, and will it end up positive? Instantly, each answered: Yes. Can we win? Yes. Will we win? Yes. Do our men want to win? Yes. Are our men happy, pleased? Do they know what they are doing? Absolutely. When I was finished with my time with the Secretary of Defense and the two outstanding generals, I was convinced that all we needed to be sure that democratization sets in and takes its footing there is the will to do it. We got into this with the full concurrence of the Congress. Those who continually speak of this as being President Bush's war are stating the facts wrong. It is our war. We voted for it by huge numbers, and we haven't brought a resolution to the floor negating that, to my knowledge. For those who now think it is not ours, but that it is the President's alone, maybe they ought to bring a resolution here denying that we are involved and that it is just his, and see what the Senate would say. I believe no one will do it, and if they did it, it would overwhelmingly fail, because we want to win and we know it, but the critics are involved in a great game of politics. Truly, it is time we get politics out of the scene and do what is needed. If there are Senators who know how to do it better, they ought to propose it. This is a very open body. If they have a better plan, suggest it. If they think we ought to spend the money differently, amend it. But we ought to do it. Everybody involved in this on the ground in Iraq thinks we are on the right path--the men there, the women there, the generals there, the privates. The men whose boots are on the ground think we are doing right. The only people who don't are countries such as France. We will never convince France about this. There is no use trying. They have already forgotten about America and America's involvement in helping them, and they are on some new path of their own. I remember as a Senator when people such as Helmut Kohl, the former Chancellor of Germany, would give a speech that would make you cry about how much Germany owed America. I heard one. I cried as he told of what brothers we were and why and what great people we were to win a war and demand nothing from them. Here we are engaged in a war against terror that will help all of Europe, and we have France and other countries, for some reasons of their own, out there acting as if America were some foreign power that they don't even know, that has some mission that is adverse to the world, when they know better. They know our mission, they know our attitude, and they know what kind of country we are. Having said that, I hope, if we can't move this emergency supplemental request on Monday, that we move rapidly, whenever that is, to let the Senate speak. Do we want to abandon this process before it ever has a chance to succeed, or do we want to give it a real chance to prevail? I believe in the end the latter will prevail. It will take some time and some talking, but in the end we will conclude that 4\1/2\ months is not long enough to determine the destiny of that country where we had such a fantastic military victory that the world will recognize forever as one of the single most significant military achievements in history with minimal civilian damage and expeditious and maximum annihilation of the real opponent. We cannot quit after 4 months. We cannot say we will support the men and women of the military but we won't support the effort to provide the minimal service that will bring the Iraqi people into a state where they will want to move forward, democratize, and become free. To me, it is a simple proposition--and maybe it should not be--that is, do we want to give up or do we want to win? Do we want to abandon this effort after 4\1/2\ months and challenge every single move by somebody as distinguished as Ambassador Bremer and his team? I believe the answers are pretty simple. The American people, even with all the negatives thrown at them about what's happening in Iraq, still believe we did right going in, and they still believe we are right in being there now. All that is left is that we do what is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, might I say to my friends on the other side, I came with the intention of speaking about the guest Chaplain, who is from New Mexico. But I want to note we have an important event, a funeral for a 27-year-old son of one of our staffers from the Energy Committee at 10:15, so I will not be able to come back during that Republican time. So I would ask if I can----

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if I could just give my speech on the guest Chaplain and also my other comments now.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, might I say, as I note your presence in the chair--and you are also the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, about which we are talking this morning--I compliment you. I have not seen more difficult hearings than you have endured in getting started on this process. I think you have been eminently fair. I have great confidence that what you choose to do, and how you choose to handle this, will be fair to everybody. And I say that to you in all honesty.