Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues on the Senate floor today talking about drought and the desperate need for drought assistance. Throughout this session, I have been a fervent advocate of drought assistance for producers in Wyoming. I am speaking today because the need for assistance persists. Today's discussion has focused on farmers. They need help. Farmers missed out on the emergency livestock programs provided by the administration. Even with crop insurance, farmers are facing serious difficulties. As this drought has continued for multiple years, crop insurance premiums have increased each time a producer is forced to take a loss. Yield averages, the basis for insurance payments, have been dropping with dismal production each year. Crop yields are so low this year that market prices are actually higher. The farm bill counter cyclical payments that were designed to support prices when markets fell below a certain level have been thwarted by these higher prices. These higher prices are meaningless when the quantities have been so drastically reduced. Therefore, this protection has been rendered useless. Farmers clearly need help, but I also think it is important to remember that our ranchers aren't safe yet either. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Bob and Nancy Tarver. They are a ranching family from near my home of Gillette, WY.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank all of the conferees for the long hours and late nights they here worked to complete this bill. I know this has been a difficult process and a long year. Unfortunately, now I kind myself in a very difficult position. I find myself forced to oppose this legislation even though it is a Presidential priority and even though I support the underlying goals. It was a little over a year ago that Senators Sarbanes, Gramm, Dodd, and I announced an agreement for terrorism risk insurance legislation. That agreement outlined the parameters that we thought were a reasonable response to disruptions occurring in the marketplace as a result of the lack of reinsurance. This agreement outlined very limited and specific liability protections that would protect both the taxpayer's pocketbook and businesses which may themselves be victim's of terrorism from frivolous lawsuits after future terrorist attack. These limited protections were: First, suits filed as a result of a terrorist attack would be consolidated into a Federal district court; second, punitive damages would not be allowed; and third, the Secretary of the Treasury was given the ability to agree to out-of-court settlements. Now, in this new conference report, two out of these three protections have been eliminated. The new program in this conference report will allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed against businesses that may be victims of the terrorist act themselves. Think about a business located in the World Trade Center on 9/11. This business was destroyed and likely lost a number of its employees. The next thing that happens is while attempting to rebuild, the business gets slapped with a frivolous lawsuit by a greedy trial lawyer. It is ridiculous to believe that a business could have prevented an attack of this kind. Yet this legislation will subject them to the will of the trial bar. This conference report keeps America's businesses and the taxpayer subject to punitive damages. I have a Statement of Administration Policy from the executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget. In the second paragraph of the letter dated June 13, 2002, it states ``the Administration cannot support enactment of any terrorism insurance bill that leaves the Nation's economy and victims of terrorist acts subject to predatory lawsuits and punitive damages.''' Also from the administration, I have a letter signed by Treasury Secretary O'Neill, OMB Director Daniels, Director of the National Economic Council Lindsey, and Director of the Council of Economic Advisors Glenn Hubbard dated June 10, 2002. This letter states ``the victims of terrorism should not have to pay punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish criminal or near-criminal worngdoing.'' It goes on the say ``the availability of punitive damages in terrorism cases would in inequitable relief for injured parties, threaten bankruptcies for American companies and a loss of jobs for American workers.'' I could not agree more with the administration's position from just a few months ago that this legislation could lead to the bankruptcies of American companies who were victims of terrorist acts themselves. In addition, this conference report does not include a provision which allows the Secretary of the treasury to agree to out-of-court settlements. This legislation has the American taxpayer pay potentially 90 percent of property and casualty costs after a terrorist attack. I can think of no other instance where the group liable for paying 90 percent of a lawsuit is unable to agree to an out-of-court settlement. If another catastrophic terrorist attack occurs, every trial lawyer in America will file a lawsuit because they know that the insurance company, which only pays 10 percent of the settlement, will agree immediately. The mansions of the trial lawyers will be built with the dollars of the American taxpayer. I do not consider the inclusion of these protections to be extreme measures and I do not think that most of the members of this chamber believe them to be unreasonable. They are very simple and reasonable protections that basically say the trial bar should not take advantage of tragedies caused by terrorists. The President invited Senate Republican conferees to the White House a few weeks ago where concerns were raised regarding the lack of these specific taxpayer protections. Unfortunately, these protections were not reintroduced into the legislation and now this conference report comes to the floor of the Senate without a single Senate Republican conferee's signature. For these reasons, I am unable to support passage of this legislation. I support the program and understand the possible economic problems by not passing the legislation. I cannot in good faith subject the hard-working taxpayers of Wyoming to the potential losses they might incur because of the self-serving and unjustified lawsuits which may result. However, even though I cannot support this bill because of the lack of taxpayer protections, I would like to commend those who have worked so diligently on the legislation for over a year now. Senator Dodd, in particular, has given more time and effort to this project than probably anyone. He and his staff, Alex Sternhell, have remained committed to seeing the passage of this legislation and have done remarkable work to bring the issues that relate to the structure of the program to a compromise. I have to say that I agree with Senator Dodd's position on the structure of the program and always felt confident in the manner which he negotiated these provisions. Mr. President, my position on this legislation has not changed since the very beginning. I believe we need a Federal backstop and I believe at one point we had a bill that did just that. I am sorry the trial bar was able to derail the bill for over a year now. I can only hope that the trial lawyers of America will stop to realize that subjecting Americans to lawsuits to line their pockets after the devastation of a terrorist attack is simply the wrong thing to do . Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an important and moving statement made by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under- Secretary-General of the United Nations, on September 11, 2002. Ambassador Reed's remarks are a true example of the national strength, personal mourning, and international support that we all have experienced since September 2001. I ask that his remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow. Remarks by Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations On behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi A. Annan, I bring greetings and good wishes on this solemn anniversary commemorating September 11, 2001--9/11-- The Day of Terror. The Secretary-General regrets that he could not be with us today. He is very much involved, as you know, with preparations of the 57th General Assembly as well as the ongoing task of pursuing the course of peace in the 17 Peace Keeping Missions around our troubled globe. The Secretary-General is presiding at a commemoration of 9/ 11 on the Great Lawn at the United Nations with 191 member states participating. First, allow me to salute the organizers of this International Symposium. The mission of the Virtue Foundation is as laudable as it is imperative. ``From Tragedy to Unity: A Celebration of the Human Spirit.'' That is the theme of this Symposium. None of us can ever forget the tragedy and terror and sadness that 9/11 brought upon our nation, our society and the world. But, the prominent panelists in today's discussions in this hallowed Museum will not dwell on the past horror. Rather, their focus will be on healing and renewal and rekindling strength in our citizenry. With this lofty, indeed noble--yet irrefutably appropriate--purpose in mind, today's Symposium will inspire all of us to rebuild and create a more cohesive and caring community. Amid sorrow we will create anew. That is what our world needs now. Whether a life or a building or a spirit--there is a call now to rebuild--a need for a new beginning. This anniversary day is also very much a Time of Remembrance. None of us here in the Rainey Auditorium and across the length and breadth of our beautiful nation will ever forget that horrible moment a year ago today when we heard the unspeakable news. We will never forget where we were, whom we were with or what we were doing. 9/11 was the Opening Day of the 56th General Assembly of the United Nations. It was the day the United Nations celebrates the International Day of Peace. I was on my way to Headquarters. On hearing the news of the first crash I returned to our house joining my stunned wife in staring at the television. We shared the national experience of a quantum leap into a new, frightening and uncertain world. We immediately sensed this was the world we would now live in for the rest of our lives. This past year has been a period of national mourning. I hesitate to say but reality makes me do so--A sense of dread and sadness has gripped our nation in the searing emotional aftermath of the Day of Terror. The world must never forget that September 11, 2001 was the bloodiest day on American soil since our civil war. Our flags are half-staff. The Congress has designated today Patriot Day to honor the sacrifice made by 3,000 innocent citizens on that tragic day. National character does not change in a day. 9/11 did not alter the American character, it merely revealed it--it forced--the emergency of a bedrock America of courage, resolve, resourcefulness and, above all, resilience. What the enemy did not know or anticipate was that beneath the outward normality of America in post-Cold War repose lay a sleeping giant that Admiral Yamamoto knew he had awakened on December 7, 1941 and that Osama bin Laden had no inkling he had awakened on September 11, 2001. The world then witnessed an astonishing demonstration of resilience, the kind only a nation of continental size and prodigious productivity, of successful self-government and self-conscious spirituality could summon. The anniversary of this stunning national `state change'; will be respectfully celebrated in tears, sorrow and reflection. The death toll of the 9/11 attacks did not just affect New York and the United States. Though the overwhelming number of those who died was American citizens there were victims from 36 countries around the world. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, with 27 who died, was the hardest hit of the foreign lands. The old diplomatic refrain that ``one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'' can no longer be argued. Ladies and Gentlemen--let me be perfectly clear: September 11 proved once and for all that ``Terror is terror.'' Terror is inexcusable, it is indefensible, it is wrong. That Day of Terror transformed ``terrorism.'' In the past, in their madness, terrorists yearned for a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead. Last year, the rules changed. Those terrorists--those assassins--sought to kill thousands as hundreds of millions watched in horror. The murderers got what they wanted. But, they and the rest of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network miscalculated America's might and resolve. This September 11 marks not just a day of infamy, but also the close of Year One of the War on Terrorism. And to win the war we need to demonstrate--as America has done in other great wars of necessity--patience, endurance, determination, and a willingness to bear any burden. Their attack on the symbols of United States economic and military power stirred the world's only superpower to place terrorism at the heart of its--and the world's--foreign and domestic policy. The message today is clear. The United States will not negotiate terrorism. Nor will it compromise with terrorists. Rather she will destroy them and all the evil for which they stand. Of that, I have no doubt. We will never forget 9/11. Today's Symposium, then, is an important one. Today is the day to begin to move from this tragedy to ``unity and a celebration of the human spirit.'' Thank you Director de Montebello for making this great Museum the home of this gathering. Thank you Dr. Salim and Dr. LaRovere for your initiative. To all the organizers, musicians, members of the staff of the Met and the distinguished participants who will be with us today I salute each of you. Let us find healing and strength in remembrance. I pray that the coming year will bring us closer together--within our families and our communities--and ever more committed to caring for one another. May we enjoy years of peace for our children, for the future, for all mankind. Peace!

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, who this weekend will be honored with the Distinguished Alumni Award from his alma mater, the University of Wyoming. I know how much Craig loves the Cowboys and the University, so this is a special honor indeed, and one all of us are proud that he has achieved. Senator Thomas graduated from the UW in 1954 with a Bachelors degree in Agriculture. As a student from Wapiti, WY, Senator Thomas wanted to pursue a career as a veterinarian, but his 4-H experience steered him toward animal production. Aside from his studies, he also took an interest in wrestling, and as I understand it he was even good enough to earn a wrestling scholarship. If you ask him, he will tell you that his participation on the UW wrestling team was one of the biggest influences during his college career and that it taught him discipline and sportsmanship. There's no doubt it gave him a strong will to succeed. Ultimately, it was those special years as a University of Wyoming Cowboy, or Pokes as we call them, that helped shape the life of the man who has served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and is now in his second term in the U.S. Senate. Despite his busy schedule, Craig continues to give his time and energy to the university, serving several terms on the College of Agriculture's Advisory Board and earning an Outstanding Alumni Award in 1995. This is not the first time my friend has been recognized for his dedication to community and learning. After serving two years as president of the Wyoming State 4-H Foundation, and serving on its board for 10 years, Craig was inducted in April into the National 4-H Hall of Fame. This past August, he took first place at the State Fair during an honorary 4-H steer showmanship class, and he always is a welcome face for 4-H participants who come to Washington, DC, for the national trips. These awards are a testament to his deep roots and the connection he still has to our great state and the people who make it work. I believe the University of Wyoming selected an exemplary recipient for this award and I know he is both humbled and proud for the recognition. Craig is being honored not only because of what he did at UW, but for what he continues to do, he is a forceful advocate for the University here in Washington. The benefits of his labor on their behalf can be seen everywhere around campus. Let me again say congratulations to my colleague and also to the University for recognizing someone so deserving of the distinguished Alumni Award. Craig, your hard work and dedication to the University of Wyoming have not gone unnoticed. Your on-going legacy will continue to be felt by many students and graduates to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have often heard it said that Wyoming is such a remarkable place to live because of the remarkable people who live there. For my part, I can not only assure you that it is true, but I have the proof in the form of one of the stories of our remarkable citizenry that I would like to share with my colleagues today. In just a few weeks, Bill Brewer will be retiring after serving for 26 years as our Sheriff for Park Country. All told, he will be closing the books on a career in law enforcement that totals almost 40 years. As a former Mayor, I know full well the importance of a good Sheriff in city and county management and the important role law enforcement plays in the services we provide to the citizens of our communities. If nothing else, good city and county government demands that we ensure the safety of our people to the fullest extent possible. That is why law enforcement officers like Bill Brewer are so important in the day to day life of our communities. Sheriff Brewer has been an integral part of the daily life of the community of Cody and Park County since 1972, when he became the Sheriff of Park County. Over the years, he proved to be instrumental in bringing the Cody Police Department and the Park County Sheriff's Department together as he worked to bring both offices into the modern age. Through his efforts, he was able to improve the technology both offices have come to depend on as they became more effective and responsive to the needs of the people of the area. Thanks to his dedication to improving the system he was a part of, numerable changes were made in the way the offices communicated with each other. And thanks to his willingness to try new things, the kind of information they exchanged and the speed with which it was shared increased dramatically. Sheriff Brewer's vision and commitment to making a difference in his corner of the world did not go unnoticed through the years, and he was named Wyoming Peace Officer of the Year in 1981. The award was presented to him to recognize his devotion to duty as well as his dedication and commitment to improving the tools his officers had access to in the performance of their daily duties. For example, in the 1980's, Sheriff Brewer's foresight and commitment to ensuring Cody and Park County had the most modern crime fighting tools possible led him to create a SWAT team for the County. Although there was quite a bit of dissension about the formation of such a force, it proved to be an important addition to the law enforcement team of the area when there was a shooting at a bar in Cody. The perpetrators fled the scene and barricaded themselves in a cabin. It was then up to the newly formed SWAT team to capture them and bring them to justice. They were subsequently convicted and the story was broadcast across the nation as part of a television series of law enforcement. In addition to his duties as a Sheriff, Bill has also been very involved with the youth of the community. He was a boxing coach and referee, as well as a baseball and basketball coach. I would be remiss if I didn't also point out Bill's participation in the music community of the area. He plays the banjo and the guitar and he and his father played with the Wyoming Fiddlers Association. He also enjoys playing horseshoes and now that he's retired, I have no doubt that he is going to get into a lot more activities in the years to come. Bill Brewer will long be remembered for all he has done to make his community a better place to live. For his almost forty years of service, he has made a huge difference in his neck of the woods of Wyoming. There is no way to measure all Bill has accomplished as Sheriff and the lives he has touched in all his activities. A lot of the area bears his remarkable and gentle touch and is better for his having passed by. Now, I have a hunch Bill and his remarkable wife Janet won't be slowing down so much as changing gears and direction in retirement. I wish them all the best in whatever they decide to do in the coming years. After all, Bill has done all we could have asked him to do, and more, for almost forty years. I hope he and Janet enjoy their retirement. They have been a great team for Park County and Wyoming and they have earned it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to answer some of these questions about why we are now considering a resolution and what proof we have about Iraq. Senator Sarbanes and I are the two delegates to the United Nations this year for the House and Senate. I was on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly when the President made his speech and presented his case to the General Assembly. I have to say I was so proud of him. Before he even gave the speech, there had been a lot of hype in the papers that was unfavorable to him. When he was introduced, the tension in the crowd could be felt, and there was no applause. I did learn later that there is seldom applause when a head of state is introduced. When he gave his speech the body language could be seen on the other delegates. At the end of the speech--also untypical--they gave him applause. I also want to tell my colleagues what happened after that. As we wandered about and met other delegates, we heard lots of positive comments about what the President said. Not only that, virtually every head of state who followed him had the same message for the U.N.: Be useful or be done. That is the message that the President delivered. Why now? Right now because we are trying to strengthen the resolve of the United Nations. Discussions are going on right now in the Senate and throughout the nation about what should be done with Iraq. We are the ones who provide the leadership in this country. We are the ones who set the tone. We are the ones who have to approve what the President is doing. What proof do we have? I hope everyone is attending the classified briefings that are available. The things that are not classified are enough to scare us. The reports of Iraq that gave to the United Nations show many chemical weapons they had left at the end of the war--their report, their numbers, their chemicals, their weapons of bioterrorism. Subtract out the numbers that they destroyed, and we wind up with a huge supply of chemical and biological weapons. Weapons that could be used against us now. One of the things the other countries of this world appreciate is the patience our President had after September 11. Bombs were going off in Afghanistan that very night, and the press covering it said: The United States is retaliating. But it was not us. The President was busy sending envoys to nations all over the world, setting up a coalition-- the same kind of coalition we are being asked about now. Some have asked: Shouldn't we see if there is a coalition first? No. First we should show our resolve, and then we can build coalitions. This is the President who built coalitions. This is the President who went into Afghanistan with war plans, with a method, with cooperation, and he did in 1 month what Russia was not able to do in 7 years. It is a President who knows what he is doing. It is a President with patience. Now he is asking us to pass a resolution. How strange and unheard of is this request to pass a resolution? In 1998, a Republican-controlled Senate for a Democrat President recognized that this was not Democrat versus Republican. We then said that it was very important to bring up a resolution that would show our resolve. That is exactly what a resolution does--show resolve. We passed a resolution in 1 day. We passed a resolution with no amendments. The President asked us. We did it. We showed unity. We showed the country we were behind the President and we were ready to do whatever was necessary for the same despot we are talking about now. Do we think he has gotten better? No. He has gotten worse. Do we think he has gotten less prepared? No. He has gotten more prepared. It is time we did something about it, and time we did it through the right channels--that is exactly what the President is doing. Part of that process is to ask us, ask Congress, to help. In 1998, we did it with no questions. We did it with no amendments. We did it with no filibuster. What do we have in the Senate today? We have a filibuster. We have amendments. We have people giving all kinds of excuses so they can vote against an amendment that is necessary to get the resolve of the Security Council. That way the United Nations will have the backbone to say to this despot, this tyrant, this killer of babies, that it is time he straightened out, got rid of his chemical weapons, got rid of his biological weapons, and let us in to make sure there were not any nuclear weapons. It is time he becomes part of the community of nations or gets out of office. It is that simple. If we could do pass a resolution for Bill Clinton, we ought to be able to do it for President Bush. Again, I want to remind my colleagues of the patience and resolve we had going into Afghanistan. I think parts of this discussion came up from the fact that somebody heard that we had plans for attacking Iraq. Well, we better have. We have a Defense Department that we pay a lot of money to plan for events so that they never happen. They have a plan on Iraq, and they have a plan on another dozen countries. Every once in awhile, we even have exercises or war games so our Defense Department can see how to move people and have the right equipment in the right place at the right time. That way we know that the training is good for the people we have in the armed services. Anybody who commits to the service of this country must be assured that we are also committed to providing them with the training and everything under the Sun we can give them to keep them safe. Keep them safe so they can do their job and to com home alive. That is absolutely essential. Today we have half a dozen amendments, we have substitutes amendments to substitute amendment. We do have a resolution, a resolution the President asked us to pass. It is one that is considerably more detailed and one that has more hoops to jump through than the one we approved in 1998. This is the resolution we need to pass. We must give President Bush the authority we gave President Clinton in 1998 without limiting authority or amendments. In July of 1998, as I mentioned, we considered a resolution urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq in compliance with international obligations. The Senate debated that for one day, without amendments. We approved the resolution by unanimous consent. That means no one objected and no one wanted to add an amendment. We just said yes. The House debated that one for day, had no amendments, and approved it by a vote of 407 to 6. In October of 1998, we considered legislation that, in addition to authorizing the President to provide assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition, declared it should be the policies of the United States to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime and replace it with a democratic government. What did we do on that? The Senate debated that legislation for one day without amendments and we approved it by unanimous consent. Once again, no one wanted to amend it, no one disagreed. We gave President Clinton the authority. The House debated that legislation for one day and approved it by a vote of 360 to 38. One day in each Chamber--one day in each Republican-controlled Chamber giving authority to a Democratic president. One day in 1998. How many days will it take in 2002? We are already days into debate. How many days are needed by my colleagues to undermine the ability of the United States to address a security threat? The President has been criticized for asking for a Congressional resolution prior to achieving a United Nations Security Council resolution. I believe the United Nations does have an important role in the future of Iraq. If the UN does its job, and member states do what is right, we can address the threat within the realm of the United Nations, which I am sure would be everyone's preference. As an independent nation, however, the United States cannot sit idly by while the Security Council debates the validity of pledges made by a known liar. If the General Assembly and Security Council are not prepared to defend the security of the world and the legitimacy of this organization, the United States must be prepared to act. A strong resolution with strong support is the best effort to prevent a war later. Afghanistan made the U.S. credible. It proved our patience and capability. Those traits go a long way to moving Saddam--as long as Congress shows resolve and then the UN shows resolve. It is also important to note that the passage of a Congressional Resolution would not prevent the Administration from continuing its work at the United Nations. Rather, I believe it will help the President gain support for an appropriate Security Council resolution. As Congress, our actions must show a united front with the strong resolve of the American people. We will not wait to be attacked. We will not wait for inaction and discord. We will not tolerate an Iraqi President who flouts the authority of an organization only to cower under its umbrella when convenient. Saddam Hussein is not crazy or an idiot. He is dangerous because he is cunning and very calculated. Repeatedly, he pushes the international community to the brink point and then backs down and says--sure, let the weapons inspectors come back. How many times are we going to let him play this game? Do we wait for him to attack with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons? Do we wait for yet another international inspector team to be denied access to weapons stockpiles? Do we wait for another attack on the United States? Iraq has a despot leader, chemical and biological weapons, and a proven willingness to use anything. Iraq is the only country in the world with all three components. We must have changes immediately or regret it soon. Many have asked why now, and I must ask why have we not acted sooner? We have considered action in Iraq before. We decided in 1991 that we should defend Kuwait. We sent in planes and bombs in 1998 and brought the inspectors home, but we have been silent since then. It is worthwhile to look at a few of the 16 Security Council resolutions that Saddam has chosen to ignore: Resolution 687, adopted April 3, 1991, called for Iraq to accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons useable material; Resolution 707, adopted August 15, 1991, condemned Iraq's violation of Resolution 687, adopted only four months before; Resolution 1051, adopted March 27, 1996, called for Iraq to comply with weapons inspectors; Resolution 1115, adopted June 21, 1997, condemned the repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors; and Resolution 1194, adopted September 9, 1998, condemned the decision by Iraq to suspend cooperation with inspectors and oppose its obligations under Security Council resolutions. In 1991, we knew Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction. We knew it in 1995. We knew it in 1998. We know now--he has these weapons today. There is no reason he would stop producing them--no one has been there to stop him. The United States and Great Britain have been enforcing the no-fly zones, but no one has been enforcing Saddam's commitments to disarm. No one can believe he would simply stop producing these evil weapons out of the goodness of his heart. When and if we do use our armed forces, we must show one of the vast differences between the US and Saddam: a value for human life. To him, soldiers are expendable. To us, each and every life has value and worth. Any military action inherently puts the lives of our brave soldiers at risk, and the American people know this far too well, but we must explore all possibilities and attempt to act with as little American and even Iraqi lives lost as possible. When Congress approved authorization for forays into Iraq in 1998, in one days debate, no amendments, former President Clinton, said, ``Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.'' This is the same message we are again debating today. We must allow this President--President George Bush--to stand up and say ``We are prepared to act.'' He must be able to state that to our allies with the authority and Congressional support, without limitation, that we gave in 1998. When we act with our allies or through the United Nations, we should go into Iraq with a plan--actually, several plans: a plan for how to disarm Saddam and his guard; a plan for how to remove Saddam from power; a plan for when and how American troops should leave Iraq. The United States, however, should not have a plan for installation of a hand-picked successor. The Iraqi people must ultimately choose their leader. The United States and the international community must work with the people of Iraq just as we worked with the people of Afghanistan. If we choose a leader for Iraq, we will not be allowing the Iraqis to form an independent and democratic nation. The United States should have a plan for encouraging the various factions to work together, but we cannot choose a future leader before the battle begins. The President and Congress have both been accused of trying to politicize the issue of Iraq. This is not a political issue. It wasn't in 1998 and should not be now. It is an issue of national security and international stability. The truth is respected individuals from both parties have expressed support for taking action and, more importantly, support having a plan for action. On September 12 this year, former Senator Bob Kerry, a Democrat from Nebraska, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``The real choice is between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Saddam Hussein and a military effort designed to replace him.'' He also pointed out that the United States has spent more than a billion dollars in the last 11 years on simply containing Saddam. What return have the American people received from that investment? Saddam is still in power, the Iraqi people are still oppressed, and the security and stability of the region are still threatened. This is the choice we have today. Do we keep the status quo and continue to spend money without any change in Iraq or do we authorize the President to take action and make some changes? I support change. Without any serious action by either the United States or the international community, we are telling Saddam that his game can go on. He stays where he is and continues his shell game. We lose again. Saddam is more than willing to keep the game going as long as the United States and the world are willing to lose. The people of Iraq, the people of the United States, and the people of the world have not need for the leadership of Saddam Hussein--we can all agree on that. If he cannot abide by his international obligations and if he will not disarm then, simply put, he needs to go. We need to be rid of him and the President needs the authority to use armed forces to remove Saddam if necessary. I firmly believe that firm resolve under this resolution--this resolution that does give some pretty broad powers--will keep us from having to go to war. Without it, I think we may have to go to war. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the language included in the Lieberman-Warner substitute without any amendments--just as we did for President Clinton in 1998--with the same resolve, with the same unity, and with the same straightforwardness we had then. We can't quite do that, though, can we? We have already debated a couple of days. We have already had amendments put in. But we can still have the kind of unity we need to show our resolve so we can get the U.N. to do something which will keep us from going to war. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as people can probably tell, we are getting down to the end of this session. As such, there is a lot of business that still needs to be completed. Many of my colleague have expressed their concerns that the Senate has not completed its business for this session. We all have similar concerns. Every once in a while, I am compelled to come to the floor and explain what is going on. There is not a scorecard around here. There is not a program that anyone can follow. So sometimes it is a little difficult to know what is really happening in the Senate. I know there is a little confusion among the American public about our progress because I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend. I go out on Friday because we usually do not have votes on Fridays. I travel to a different part of Wyoming each weekend and I return to Washington on Sunday. One of the things I have learned in my 5\1/2\ years of being a Senator from Wyoming is that it is really a big State with numerous communities. Each side of Wyoming is approximately 400 miles on a side, one of those two big square States in the West. If they had not invented the square, we would not be able to exist. Wyoming has 267 towns and one-third of those towns do not have any population. I go to those towns, too, because there actually are people who congregate at those places. There is a post office or a school or some other public facility, or a ranch that people go to discuss issues. For example, two weeks ago, I was invited to a pork barbecue--very unusual in Wyoming. We usually have beef barbecues, but this was a pork barbecue at three ranches north of Lusk, Wyoming in Niobrara County. The population of the entire county--and it is bigger than most eastern States--is a little over 3,000 people. Most of the population lives in one town, Lusk. The ranch where the barbecue was hosted is just three ranches north near Lusk. It turned out that three ranches north is 61 miles and then you are still not there. After driving 61 miles, you turn off the highway and drive back another 25 miles on dirt roads to get to the ranch where the barbecue was being held. During the last 25 miles, I forded a crick to get to the house. I do not know how many of my colleagues have recently forded a crick to get to some of their constituents. But when I got to the ranch, there were approximately 200 people sitting on hay bales, listening to a band, eating the barbecue, and talking about what was going to happen in their State legislative district. Some of our State legislative districts in Wyoming are pretty long and wind around so they have enough people within the borders to qualify as a legislative district. Previously, the record for people traveling to attend one of my meetings was no more 40 or 50 miles. That is how close neighbors live next to one another out in that part of the country. At this particular meeting, we set a new record. One of the families had traveled to over 180 miles to attend my meeting. Surprisingly enough, they still live in that same house State legislative district, which gives you an idea about the number of miles that we have travel out in the West. One of the things I have discovered during my weekly trips to Wyoming is what the people in my home State are really thinking and worrying about. I am here to tell you they have two main worries right now. One of my constituents' worries is the drought. Wyomingites are experiencing the third year of a tragic drought. People have had to sell off their livestock. When all areas affected by this drought start to sell off livestock, it drives the prices down. It particularly drives the prices down if there is a packer concentration that sets those prices. Packer concentration is another little problem we have in Wyoming, which coincides with our State's current drought. I am sure people in America have not noticed their beef prices going down. No, their beef prices have been increasing. But the ranchers' prices have been decreasing. It is an effect of the drought--with some phony economics built in. Nevertheless, Wyomingites are very interested in the drought. My constituents also are very interested in what is going to happen in Iraq. I was able to travel to New York on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly when the President delivered his speech to the General Assembly. Each session, the President is allowed to appoint two people from the Congress to be United Nations delegates. President Bush appointed Senator Sarbanes and me to represent the Congress at the General Assembly, giving us diplomatic status and rank. It is actually very exciting. If the Ambassador is not there, we have the right to sit in the U.S. Ambassador's seat and cast votes on United Nations resolutions. We also have the opportunity to address the United Nations. It was interesting attending the session in which President Bush delivered his speech to the United Nations General Assembly. When the President was first introduced, the people who applauded were primarily from the United States. It was a strange situation for the President of the United States because they are used to having people stand and applaud. For the General Assembly attendees, it was not a big shock about the lack of applause because we had just heard the Brazilian head of state's speech and he did not receive applause at the beginning or end of his speech. President Bush gave his speech, giving an outstanding delivery. It was fascinating to watch the delegates around the floor as their body language demonstrated that they were loosening up. As all of you who watched the speech know, when President Bush finished, he received applause--pretty unanimous applause. He made a point, and I have to tell you that after he finished, the other heads of state, as they gave their speeches, used the theme that the President used. They took Iraq to task and Iraq heard it. Because the heads of state have talked about Iraq--and it is still talk--Iraqi officials have talked about allowing inspectors in the country. However, we still have a long way to go. There is more important work that we have to accomplish to show the resolve of the United States and that we are going to disarm Saddam Hussein. If we cannot disarm Hussein, we are going to replace him. In the next week, the Congress will be debating a resolution concerning Iraq. It was introduced in a bipartisan manner in the Senate earlier today, and it is going to be one of the really important debates of this body. It will take us at least a few days to complete. I have to tell you that after the President's speech was over, the delegates had a little time to talk among themselves. We wandered around and met other delegates, and also overheard their conversations. I was very pleased at how well the delegates accepted the President's comments about Iraq. Again, if the United Nations does its job, sticks together and does what all of the heads of states have been saying, we can solve the Iraq problem and we can solve it within the realm of the United Nations. I am sure that would be everyone's preference. While I am explaining what is going on in the Congress, I have to backtrack a little bit because the Congress has had a little different situation this year and we have numerous loose ends that remain out there. We have heard about why the appropriations bills are stalled out. I want to take time to explain why that has happened. Homeland security is stalled out, and I want to explain why that has happened. We also have an energy conference that is out. We have the military construction and defense appropriations, that have already passed this body and passed the House and are now being conferenced. We have terrorism insurance, which has passed both bodies and is being conferenced. We have the Patients' Bill of Rights, and other bills, for which conference committees have been selected. We work through a committee process in the Congress. The committee process allows a select group of people who are intensely interested in a particular policy area get together as a committee and they review a bill from all of the perspectives of all committee members. It is the easiest place to work a bill because groups can drop off where they have common interests in a particular section of that bill and work out compromises easier than can be done on the floor. So I would say about 80 percent of the work that we do get done is during the committee process. One of the reasons that people sometimes think the Senate is a divisive body is that this is the room in which we debate the other 20 percent--the 20 percent that we did not work out in the committee. One of the things you will notice is when we complete a bill, we agree on about 80 percent, which we had originally agreed upon during the committee process. It makes us look a little divisive, but it is part of the philosophy that keeps the legislative process moving. The committee process gets things done in the Senate. This year, we debated the energy bill for approximately 8 weeks. It did not go through committee. You were able to see the entire bill crafted and debated on the Senate floor without the flexibility found during the committee process. This occurred because the Senate Energy Committee was stopped from working on its version of the energy bill. There was some bipartisan agreement on the energy bill during the committee process, and then the committee was told to stop working on it. Consequently, it took us a long time to work through the energy bill on the Senate floor, and I do not think it is a bill that, because of the complexities of doing it with 100 votes, really reflected what could have been accomplished in committee. We worked on prescription drugs, which is one of the most critical needs for seniors in this country. What happened on prescription drugs? It did not come out of committee. Normally the Senate Finance Committee, which has an extensive expertise on health care, Medicare, and Social Security, handles those issues. But the committee was not able to handle it. The Senate voted on three different prescription drug bills this year, which took many weeks of debate and time to discuss each one. None of them had enough votes to pass the parliamentary requirements to move forward in the Senate, even though one of them was a tripartisan bill. There is another unique thing that has happened this year in the Senate. We are not operating with a budget. The last budget agreement ended yesterday. It presents some real complications for us to be able to get our work done. It presents even bigger complications for maintaining any kind of a balanced budget--or as close as possible-- when the economy is down and a war is occurring. We need a budget, but we do not currently have a budget. Another thing that has happened is when bills come to the Senate floor, usually each side gets to introduce some amendments. Each side is allowed to introduce and vote on their own amendments. Lately, what we have been having is a full tree. You will hear that comment around here. I need to better explain this terminology. The full tree means that one side puts in all the amendments that can be debated, so the other side is blocked from being able to offer any amendments. There were some promises in June that was not going to happen. Promises have not been kept. Once we finally were given the opportunity to put in an amendment, we have not had an opportunity to vote on it. I mentioned earlier the extreme drought that is occurring in Wyoming. Throughout the West, we are having forest fires. The fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill has an amendment that would provide for a demonstration project to show what a healthy forest could be. It does not do much, but it would allow for some demonstrations to show what could be done in our forests to have the kind of forests everyone envisions. There needs to be a good debate on what we envision as a healthy forest. In the meantime, of course, the fires rage on and we are not allowed to vote on the healthy forest demonstration project. The fire demonstration project is extremely critical to the West. About 8 million acres have burned out thus far. For people who do not deal a lot with acres, it really does not mean much to them. An acre is about the size of a football field. But that is hard to relate to 8 million acres. It is the equivalent of a four-mile-wide strip from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles that has been burned off this year. This year's fires have caused in excess of 25 deaths, and untold houses being burned to the ground. Those people who did not have their homes burned to the ground are now facing blackened stubble. Something needs to be done about it. There are some preventive actions we can take. Outside Yellowstone Park, there is a pine beetle forest, which means pine beetles have gotten into the trees and girdled them. The beetles cut off all the nutrition to trees, and the trees die. The first year they are dead, they have rusty pine needles. Pine needles burn extremely well. After the first year, you have a dead standing tree. Dead trees burn pretty well, too. After that, the trees fall over, deteriorate, and become part of the undergrowth and create further problems. There are things we could be doing to prevent these fires. Good stewardship of our forests would increase habitat for animals and provide more safety. We cannot do much, but we could do the worst first by being allowed to vote on an amendment to address wildfire suppression. The FY 2003 Interior appropriations bill has languished here for approximately five weeks. During the past month, we have debated the Interior appropriations bill in the mornings. In the afternoon, we have debated the homeland security bill. Again, after getting through a loaded amendment tree, we wind up in a situation where we cannot get a vote on the President's version of the homeland security bill. I think it is very discourteous to the President to not be allowed an opportunity to have a vote on his version of the homeland security bill. Why not? I suspect it would pass the same as the fire amendment. It is a definite dilemma. Do we let the President's homeland security version of the bill pass, or do we just stifle it? If it gets stifled, nothing can happen on this policy issue. We have some work to do. It is time we did it. It could be done by allowing some votes on some key policy issues. There has always been cooperation in the Senate for the 5\1/2\ years I have been here in allowing people to have a vote on their amendments. Sometimes we did some really unique parliamentary procedures in that we let two versions be voted on side by side, even though one was an amendment to the other. During the time the Republicans were in the majority, the minority was allowed votes on their bills, but we are now not getting votes on our bills. There is some point at which you have to say: if we cannot vote on it, we will stop the process until we do get a vote. The easy way to solve that is to let us have a vote on this important healthy forest demonstration project and the President's version of the homeland security bill. Also, let us have a vote on the President's homeland security. The significant difference in the versions is whether we are going to take away the right of the President to address ceratin personnel issues and make him subject, during emergencies, to stacks of regulations. Should the President have to go by huge stacks of regulations to make management decisions in a time of crisis while maintaining a secure homeland? There is going to be a lot of frustration in the next few days because there is a great need to get the Senate's work done. We are the ones charged with getting the appropriations bills done. We need to complete the FY 2003 appropriations process. We should start that process with the budget so that we have a road map of what we are doing, and then fill in the blanks on the appropriations while staying within a balanced budget. When I first arrived here in the Senate, we had a huge controversy. The very first thing I debated was the balanced budget constitutional amendment. People who remember 5\1/2\ years ago will remember that a constitutional amendment has a much higher criteria for passing than any other bill. It was defeated by one vote. The reason was defeated by one vote was because everybody here said we can balance the budget, and those who opposed the amendment said we can balance the budget without a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We did balance the budget for a while. We did it. I am very proud of it. While we were balancing the budget, the economy went up. When we stopped balancing the budget, the Congress said there were surpluses available to spend beyond what was allocated for before, then economy started down. Having a balanced budget gives importance to the economy of this country. It gives people more reliance on what we are doing, and more confidence in what we are doing. At the moment, we are not instilling a lot of confidence. Granted, there is a war going on, and a war affects the budget. And it should. Earlier, Senator Hollings had some charts when he was describing the amount of the national debt. I knew a fellow named Steve Tarver who used to live in Gillette. He used to get a hold of me on a regular basis and ask: How much is the national debt? If we are paying down the national debt, how come the interest isn't going down? It is because of phony accounting. We have gotten on the corporations for their accounting standards. Now it is time for us to get on our own selves for our accounting methods. For example, the Social Security trust fund, it neither funds nor trusts, and we should be taking care of it. We could pay the debt down to nothing over a 30-year period. I have had charts on the floor to show how that could be done. There are emergencies that come up. The 30 years, incidentally, corresponds with the time of a house mortgage. We buy houses, and sometimes we pass those on to our descendants. Sometimes that has a remaining bill with it, and they keep paying them down. That is what we are doing with the country. We could take the national debt and pay it off over a 30-year period, where if we did not spend the difference on the interest payment, when we reduced it, on other things, we could pay off more of the principal. So then it would be a relatively small payment. It is a huge payment, using the interest we are paying now, which we are not able to spend on anything else at a future date. As far as the war is concerned, that would be a second mortgage on the house with a much shorter term. So there is not any excuse for us not to be paying down the national debt in good times, and taking out second mortgages in bad times.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in letting me expound on this a little bit. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a short quorum call, followed by Senator Byrd for a brief moment on the floor, followed by me, and followed by Senator Sessions.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for allowing us to extend this period. It is not every day we get the opportunity to pay tribute to one of our heroes. I am sure Senator Helms would object to that wording, of being a hero, but if the definition is ordinary people doing extraordinary things, he might agree with it. But he goes well beyond that. For most of my life, I had read about Jesse Helms. And then I got elected to this body and got the awesome opportunity to meet him and to talk to him and to learn from him. It has been a delightful journey, one I will always remember and appreciate. In reading a little of his background, I learned that the Senator grew up 15 miles from the birthplace of Andrew Jackson, which is a breeding ground for true believers. With Jacksonian tenacity, he stuck to his early convictions--respect for elders and law and order, traditional religious faith, moral principles, and patriotism. He is here today with a lapel pin on that he has explained to me before. We are a part of the same organization. It is a Masonic pin he has been wearing since his first election. That is part of the great tradition and background of the Senator, an organization of individuals for self- improvement, and it is something he has worked on all his life and is still working on and is passing on to others. As Senator Helms was coming to this body, the Senator from Wyoming who had been another role model of mine, Senator Hansen, was here briefly and then left. From my mother and from Senator Hansen and Senator Helms, I have fashioned a mission statement that is in all of the rooms of my offices where my staff and I work. It says: Do what is right. Do your best. And treat others as you want to be treated. That is a motto Senator Helms exemplifies in great detail. He is one of those people who never gives the impression that a Senator is special. He knows that we really are people who had special opportunities and special responsibilities. He epitomizes that. He has had a considerable effect on events over the years. While he hasn't gotten to restore America to the state of the Monroe of his youth, he has made great strides at it, probably ones he never envisioned. I like a quote by Fred Barnes written in the Weekly Standard: He can't be buffaloed or ignored. Helms has gained strange new respect, not as many conservatives have--by moving to the left. Helms has earned it the hard way--by not moving at all. He is a man of principle who knows where he is coming from and what needs to be done and has made dramatic improvements in America while he has followed that principle. This year, I had the opportunity to join Senator Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and hold a position on the International Operations and Terrorism Subcommittee. In this role I have seen and heard much of Senator Helms' work with the United Nations. Americans and all those involved with the United Nations look at Senator Helms as one of the strongest supporters for reform of that organization. Many still talk about the wonderful pictures of Senator Helms sitting in the United Nations Security Council during a historic visit by the Foreign Relations Committee in 2000. Because of his efforts, the United States remains an active member, and the United Nations has become a more efficient organization. There is, however, still more work to do. I know Senator Helms will be sorely missed in those discussions. He has had a tremendous effect. I conclude by mentioning that as an Eagle Scout, I am proud of Senator Helms' efforts to protect the organization of the Boy Scouts of America. The organization makes a strong difference in the lives of many of our Nation's young men. It teaches them leadership and values. Senator Helms should be commended for his actions and for all of the efforts he has put forth on behalf of youth, North Carolina, the country, and the education of people like me. I thank the Senator for all of his efforts at mentoring and teaching, and his long service. This past year I had the opportunity to join Senator Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and hold a position on the International Operations and Terrorism subcommittee. In this role I have seen and heard much about Senator Helms' work with the United Nations. Americans and all those involved with the United Nations look at Senator Helms as one of the strongest supporters for reform of the organization. Many still talk about the wonderful pictures of Senator Helms sitting in the United Nations Security Council during a historic visit by the Foreign Relations Committee in 2000. Because of his efforts, the United States remains an active member and the United Nations has become a more efficient organization. There is, however, still work to do and I know Senator Helms will be sorely missed in discussions on the next steps for reform. I was also pleased this last year to support Senator Helms' efforts to expand the NATO Alliance. I agree that NATO enlargement should continue to be a focus and a priority of the United States. Senator Helms championed the effort in the Senate on the Freedom Consolidation Act and made a meaningful statement that the Congress of the United States supports the President and supports NATO enlargement. As the NATO Ministerial meets to discuss the expansion of the alliance, I am confident Senator Helms' work will be appreciated. Senator Helms has been able to balance supporting international organizations with strongly criticizing their actions when they go too far. He has fought fiercely against treaties that are not in the best interests of the United States, such as the International Criminal Court. Senator Helms has been the lead objector to treaty that would put our American Servicemembers on trial for simply doing their work to protect Americans. His efforts have encouraged this Administration to be an active voice against the prosecution of American citizens with disregard for our protected rights. Senator Helms has been a leading proponent for conservative values and beliefs. He has lead floor debate to protect the lives and the future of all Americans. He has made it his personal duty to protect our rights from over-reaching laws and values not in line with the beliefs of most Americans.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report for the U.S. Department of Justice Reauthorization. We are debating legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House last Thursday on a vote of 400-4. It is my hope that it will pass the Senate with an equally strong majority. I am speaking in support of legislation included in the conference report that protects the rights of motor vehicle dealers, many of which are small businesses, under State law. The provision is identical in substance to Senators Hatch and Feingold's bill, S. 1140, which has bipartisan support of 64 cosponsors. I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation and restore desperately needed rights to small businesses throughout the nation. S. 1140 is necessary to restore fairness for automobile dealers by preserving their state rights in dispute resolution with manufacturers under motor vehicle dealer contracts. All 50 States, including Wyoming, have enacted laws to regulate the relationship between motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers and curb unfair manufacturer practices. These laws are necessary to protect auto dealers since they must sign contracts with the much larger manufacturers to sell the product. A Supreme Court decision, however, allows manufacturers to skirt these State laws by including mandatory binding arbitration in their dealer contracts. Congress never intended to strip the State's role in regulating the motor vehicle dealer franchise relationship, but because of the Supreme Court interpretation, states cannot prohibit manufacturers from forcing dealers to waive their state rights and forums. Dealers must sign ``take-it-or-leave it contracts'' drafted by the manufacturer to stay in business, and are vulnerable to manufacturer abuses of power. Since States cannot remedy this problem, Federal legislation is necessary to restore dealers' rights. Specifically, the legislation included in the conference report States that whenever a motor vehicle franchise contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a contractual controversy, arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if both parties consent in writing after the controversy arises. It also requires the arbitrator to provide the parties with a written explanation of the factual and legal basis for the award. The arbitration language in the conference report before us is supported by Wyoming automobile and truck dealers and dealers throughout the country because it would merely restore State law. It is consistent with Wyoming law, which does not allow a manufacturer to force a dealer to prospectively waive rights and remedies under State law. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and protect our States' interest in regulating the auto dealer/manufacturer relationship.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with great honor and pride to introduce a bill that would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in Cheyenne, WY. As our Nation's veterans have proven time and time again, whenever the fear of war has knocked on America's door, we have had the strength to open it. This year has been no different. Since last September, we have witnessed the beginning of a new kind of war, a war on terrorism, and we have been confronted by the most evil of leaders who seek to destroy our love of country and freedom. Yet, our Nation's military men and women and our veterans have once again responded to the call of duty to protect everything we hold dear. They remind us that our faith in God, our belief and trust in our communities, and our strength as a Nation can and will endure through these extraordinary times. This is why I am introducing a bill to honor those who have given so much in defense of our great country. The price of freedom is not free, and many of our Nation's veterans have paid the ultimate price. Millions have been laid to rest in our Nation's national cemeteries, and millions more will follow. These veterans deserve to be placed next to those veterans with whom they so courageously engaged in battle throughout the years. All veterans deserve the opportunity to be buried in a veterans cemetery regardless of their place of residency. Fortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes the importance of providing burial sites for our Nation's veterans next to their comrades and near their families. As such, they have established a goal to increase the percentage of veterans served by a national or State veterans cemetery within 75 miles of their residence to 88 percent by 2006. I commend the VA's efforts and believe my bill will help the department reach that goal. There are currently more than 53,000 veterans in Wyoming. They live in every town, big and small, and they must often travel hundreds of miles for health care and other veteran benefits. The largest and most concentrated group of veterans in Wyoming live near Wyoming's only military base, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne. Unfortunately, this veteran population must travel either 110 miles to the national cemetery in Colorado or 235 miles to the national cemetery in Maxwell, NE. It is worse for the veteran population living in other areas of the State. There are no national cemeteries in Montana, Idaho or Utah, which leaves veterans in the northwest with few options. Regardless of a veteran's place of residency in Wyoming, most are forced to select the Wyoming State Cemetery as their place of burial because it is the only state or national cemetery in the entire state. Although it is located in Wyoming's second-largest city of Casper, Wyoming's State cemetery does not adequately meet the needs of veterans in a State that spans more than 97,000 square miles. It is, on average, 150 miles from any other incorporated city, and is more than 175 miles from the most concentrated veteran population in Cheyenne. While I commend the Wyoming State Cemetery for its exceptional service and careful maintenance, this is an extraordinary distance for friends and family to travel to visit their deceased loved ones. As such, I am introducing legislation today to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Cheyenne, WY because every veteran deserves to be buried near their families and with the honor that comes with being laid to rest in a national veterans cemetery. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with great honor and pride to introduce a bill that would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in Cheyenne, WY. As our Nation's veterans have proven time and time again, whenever the fear of war has knocked on America's door, we have had the strength to open it. This year has been no different. Since last September, we have witnessed the beginning of a new kind of war, a war on terrorism, and we have been confronted by the most evil of leaders who seek to destroy our love of country and freedom. Yet, our Nation's military men and women and our veterans have once again responded to the call of duty to protect everything we hold dear. They remind us that our faith in God, our belief and trust in our communities, and our strength as a Nation can and will endure through these extraordinary times. This is why I am introducing a bill to honor those who have given so much in defense of our great country. The price of freedom is not free, and many of our Nation's veterans have paid the ultimate price. Millions have been laid to rest in our Nation's national cemeteries, and millions more will follow. These veterans deserve to be placed next to those veterans with whom they so courageously engaged in battle throughout the years. All veterans deserve the opportunity to be buried in a veterans cemetery regardless of their place of residency. Fortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes the importance of providing burial sites for our Nation's veterans next to their comrades and near their families. As such, they have established a goal to increase the percentage of veterans served by a national or State veterans cemetery within 75 miles of their residence to 88 percent by 2006. I commend the VA's efforts and believe my bill will help the department reach that goal. There are currently more than 53,000 veterans in Wyoming. They live in every town, big and small, and they must often travel hundreds of miles for health care and other veteran benefits. The largest and most concentrated group of veterans in Wyoming live near Wyoming's only military base, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne. Unfortunately, this veteran population must travel either 110 miles to the national cemetery in Colorado or 235 miles to the national cemetery in Maxwell, NE. It is worse for the veteran population living in other areas of the State. There are no national cemeteries in Montana, Idaho or Utah, which leaves veterans in the northwest with few options. Regardless of a veteran's place of residency in Wyoming, most are forced to select the Wyoming State Cemetery as their place of burial because it is the only state or national cemetery in the entire state. Although it is located in Wyoming's second-largest city of Casper, Wyoming's State cemetery does not adequately meet the needs of veterans in a State that spans more than 97,000 square miles. It is, on average, 150 miles from any other incorporated city, and is more than 175 miles from the most concentrated veteran population in Cheyenne. While I commend the Wyoming State Cemetery for its exceptional service and careful maintenance, this is an extraordinary distance for friends and family to travel to visit their deceased loved ones. As such, I am introducing legislation today to create a National Veterans Cemetery in Cheyenne, WY because every veteran deserves to be buried near their families and with the honor that comes with being laid to rest in a national veterans cemetery. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment introduced by my colleagues, Senators Craig and Domenici, that I feel is critical to the survival of many forests in Wyoming and across the rest of the United States. This amendment gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior the ability to recognize emergency conditions that exist on many of our forests and then allows land managers to act to protect them from the extreme threat of wildfire, specifically in those areas suffering from drought and high tree mortality resulting from insect infestation, disease, invasive plant species, or other catastrophic natural events. In other words, it allows our land management agencies to clean up their tinder boxes before they explode. Wyoming is currently suffering its third year of drought, and our neighbor to the north, Montana, is in its fifth year. Colorado, to the south, had the driest 6 months on record from December to May. And South Dakota had the driest June on record. More than half the United States is considered to be in drought conditions, and some estimates place this drought in the West to eventually be worse than the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. When these dry conditions combine with the dense fuel loads that exist in our National Forest System, we get a fire season that sets new records for intensity, for severity, and for extent. In fact, things are so hot and dry in Wyoming, we have considered outlawing corduroy pants. Already, the 2002 fire season has burned more than 6,418,362 acres, or, in other words, 10,032 square miles, or--to put it a little differently--a 4-mile-wide strip from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles, CA. And that is packed into the Western States. This has already cost our Nation millions of dollars, and it will cost us millions more before the fire season is over. Earlier this year, Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth was forced to notify his forest supervisors that his agency expects to meet--and I would suggest it could even exceed--fire suppression costs spent during the historic 2000 fire season, where more than 8.4 millions acres burned, and we spent more than $1.3 billion. As was noted earlier, 2002 has already exceeded 2000's year to date acres burned. And in one recent fire--the Rodeo-Chediski fire in eastern Arizona--the Department of the Interior and the Federal Emergency Management Agency spent $8 million per day--$8 million per day--at its peak to fight it. Forests need to be controlled locally. The local forester has the best idea of what is going on, and should have more control over the decisions. Local forester decisions is recognized in the Daschle emergency military spending amendment. Forests have vast differences. Eastern forests are particularly different from western forests. People who have only seen eastern forests cannot rationally comment on health in a western forest. People of the East cannot understand how little moisture we get in the West. Wyoming gets about an average of 16 inches of rain a year. I think we get that much per month out here, sometimes, in Washington. They do not understand the difference between drought in an arid area and drought in a rain forest. Because we have less moisture, the undervegetation is different and is dry. It is often pine needles and pine needles easily combust. The West is mostly pine trees instead of hardwoods. The ground is steeply sloped. We have real mountains out in Wyoming, not the rolling hills we call mountains here in the East. So the ground is steeply sloped and it has ravines; those are small canyons. Some of them are pretty good-sized canyons. Pines ignite easier than hardwoods because they are more porous and are dryer. The trees have needles instead of leaves. When bark beetles infect a pine tree, they kill the pine, but the needles do not drop off like leaves would drop off a normal tree. They dry out. They turn a rust color. And they stay on the tree for at least a year. They ignite even easier on the tree because the air can get to the needles. Even the bark on the trees is different. Hardwoods have a denser bark, which is harder to ignite. Pines have a bark that makes really good tinder. It peels off the tree pretty easily. Even controlled burns, prescribed burns--the burns that we set intentionally in the forests--can kill trees; and they do. Many of the prescribed burn fires that we have get out of control. These are such tinder boxes that they get out of control; they race through and kill the trees, not just the underbrush they are supposed to kill. And a lot of it has to do with the difference in trees. If a beetle-killed pine is at the bottom of a hill, it easily fires up all the trees upslope from it. Fire burns up. The fire even creates a wind that moves the fire faster. If the tree happens to be in a sloping ravine--one of these canyons--the ravine creates a wind tunnel that amplifies the speed of the wind. The ravine provides a chimney effect that further dries the trees and warms them so they are more combustible, so they can explode. To fight the fires, it is necessary to get the firefighters to the fire. If the fire starts to move fast, it is also necessary to be able to get the firefighters out quickly. We are eliminating roads in our forests, and we are definitely not building any new ones. Roads cannot be built during the fire, particularly in mountainous country. Another difference with crown trees is they have a crown as opposed to the hardwood canopy of leaves. When a pine tree catches on fire, the flame burns to the point of the tree just like a candlewick. The last several feet of the tree is called the crown of the tree. When a wind is created by the burning trees, and the crown catches on fire, the crown can be separated from the tree and thrown. The wind will throw this crown a half mile to a mile, where it ignites another tree, usually at the top already, with that crown being thrown, and so on. So these fires can move extremely rapidly and set multiple fires in multiple areas. There have been changes in western forests. Landscape comparisons, where we compare old photos with the same locations today, show us there are many more places with trees today than there were 50 and 100 years ago. And where there were trees, there used to be 50 trees to the acre--an acre is about the size of a football field--and, today, that same forest area has an average of 200 trees, and sometimes as many as 1,200 trees. Trees are like most plants. If you plant too many, and you do not thin them, the growth of all of them will be stunted. Foresters have also found that pine beetles are more likely to attack trees that are always in shade. Mr. President, 1,200 trees on an acre--the size of a football field-- are going to be in shade just about all the time. Even 200 trees on an acre will be in shade all the time. Pine beetles like that. Trees always in shade are weaker and more susceptible to disease. And they are not as useful. They do not provide protection. And should we ever allow any to be cut down, they do not provide nearly the wood, either. Trees are also alive. They have a lifespan. It is a tree lifespan, not a human lifespan, so it is often considerably longer, but not always. If we only keep old-growth trees, the forest will die of old age, and nothing will be left because they will all die at the same time, or approximately. Why do we have more trees now? Because we do not have as many forest fires. Why don't we have more forest fires? Because we have more structures to protect. Why shouldn't we let fires that are distant from homes, then, burn to get rid of the excess trees? First, it is a waste of product that could keep the price of homes down and even provide homes for people who never thought they would be a part of that American dream. Second, an isolated fire that is allowed to burn becomes a huge wildfire and then is very difficult to put out. I will talk about that a little bit later. The bigger the fire, the harder it is to contain and the more dangerous it is to the lives of those fighting it. Third, when ``let it burn'' really worked was only when the western population lived in tepees. They started a lot of fires. They started fires to make meadows for the wild game and to produce some plants that need more open space. But they lived in tepees. And when a fire started, they folded up their home and they moved out of range. When the fire was over, they found more beautiful land and they started again. Today there isn't that flexibility of moving or of land availability. No one wants their home burned down. In fact, no one even wants to save their cabin if the only view they will have for the next 20 years is charred and limbless trees. Not only is the view ruined by a fire, but on the slopes we have out West, erosion starts. A woman who owns a Montana logging firm--I love this--does the accounting and runs the skidder. That is small business, when you do all ends of the thing. She owns a Montana logging firm. Two years ago, during those terrible fires we had in 2000, she testified at a special hearing that Senator Burns and Senator Craig held in Billings, MT. One of the big points she made was that there is a difference between what she does and what Mother Nature does, and it is primarily that her firm respects the rule banning timber activities within 400 feet from a stream. A fire burns right down to the stream, and so the erosion can go clear to the stream. She also brought in a little bit of a sample of some wood. I should have brought it this morning--except we are not supposed to have three- dimensional items on the floor--to show what some of these diseased trees are like. It is a core of wood about that big around. It has pine beetles in it, but it still would make homes. So the big difference between having a conscientious firm do the work and Mother Nature do the work is that the firm respects the 400 feet from the stream. I recently ran across a book called ``Fire on the Mountain.'' It is by John N. Maclean. Some of you are probably more familiar with his dad who wrote a book that became a movie called ``A River Runs Through It.'' It has some great pictures of the West in there and some great fishing pictures as well. I recommend ``A River Runs Through It.'' But for knowledge of fires, I recommend to everybody, even in cities, that they read ``Fire on the Mountain,'' which is very well done. It is from 5 years' worth of research about a fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado. It was in the south canyon and in sight of the I-70 interstate and Canyon Creek Estates. It happened on July 3, 1994, and resulted in the death of 14 firefighters, professional firefighters, ones who had heard about the fires like the one at Mann Gulch. These are people who know how fast these things can go but still have trouble believing it. I want to read a couple of excerpts from this book because it will give us a little bit of an idea of what it is like when one of these pine forests catches on fire: Bryan Scholz, the foreman, felt a pinprick of apprehension. He had seen the same thing a few weeks before, a routine brushfire on a steep slope, and that time the fire had exploded. Further on: ``I told them what was going to happen,'' Scholz said. ``The folks on the other crews were looking at me like I was some sort of knucklehead. And it happened. The fire made one huge run from bottom to top in a minute, probably a good half-mile square. This is a drought year, Scholz told the crew. ``Learn the lesson now, when we don't have to pay the price.'' Another example of how these things work: A backwash of embers swirled above the flames. If sparks from the backwash eddied down the slope and reach the opposite side of the western drainage, there would be fire on both sides of the gulch. That kind of fire creates its own wind. It turns small flames into a giant fireball, and the fireball races up the gulch faster than a man can run. That had been the story forty-five years earlier in Mann Gulch: A fireball had chased the smoke jumpers. This is the progression of the fire. Incidentally, from Canyon Creek Estates they could see this little plume of smoke up the mountain that was just a little plume of smoke for 3 days. Nobody paid any attention, except to worry that it could turn into a big fire. Continuing with an excerpt: A jet of flame shot upward and then another, seeming to spring from nowhere. Piles of dead brush, branches and tree trunks ignited. Living brush, tinder-dry from drought, took fire. Darts of flame transformed into bonfires, which merged into a single, expanding flame front. A booming wind raced up the western drainage and struck the flames, pressing the telltale smoke column nearly flat to the ground. Muscular strands of scarlet flame appeared through the smoke. The fire drew back to renew itself, taking in oxygen, and the smoke covered the flames; then the fire surged forward, and again ribbons of flame came into view. The rapid transition of a fire burning in debris and litter to one involving all available fuel, from the ground to the tops of trees. But this falls short of describing the majesty of the occasion. A blowup is one of nature's most powerful forces, equivalent to a mighty storm, avalanche or volcanic eruption. It can sweep away in moments everything before it, the works of nature and of humankind, and sometimes humankind itself. It is destructive, but neither good nor evil; it goes where wind and terrain take it. Blowups happen every fire season across the West when wind, fuel, dryness and terrain come together in the right combination and meet with a spark. The blowup stokes itself by creating its own wind, the hear drawing cooler air by convection. If it happens in a gulch, as is common, the sides of the gulch--in this case the western drainage--act as a chimmey and compress its energy. The flaming tempest can send a smoke column to a height of forty thousand feet or more. The blowup may die out once the gulch is burned or move on and reduce thousands of acres to ash. The blowing-up, in any case, is over in minutes. Flames also made downhill leaps as wind eddies scattered sparks toward the bottom of the V. The eddies carried aloft fistfuls of burning duff, decayed leaves, that is, twigs and other matter. . . . the gorge of the Colorado River, a natural wind funnel, in a phenomenon known as a venturi effect, named for the nineteenth-century physicist G. B. Venturi, who discovered that a throatlike, constricted tube actually will increase the velocity of fluids-- That is what these ravines do and what the river adds to. The transition from a ``normal'' fire to a blowup took seconds. I have to tell you, when the fire was out, the trouble wasn't over. The fire happened in July. In September--September 1--a motorist was driving through heavy rain on I-70. That is the interstate visible from where the fire was, the fire that killed 14 people who were not able to get out of the way of how fast that fire raced through this tinder dry fuel. On September 1, a motorist, driving through heavy rain on I-70 past the foot of Storm King, heard ``a whoosh like a real strong wind going through the mountains.'' Hundreds of tons of mud, blackened trees, and scorched brush, loosened as a result of the fire, slid down gullies, spilled across I-70, and poured into the Colorado River. The mud engulfed 30 vehicles. Traffic on I-70 was backed up for 4 miles. Several people and vehicles were swept into the river. Two people were injured, but [fortunately] no one was killed. That is the aftermath effect of a forest fire. That is another reason we are trying to stop forest fires, particularly in these mountainous areas. They destroy the mountain. Now, so far we have been lucky that some of our most dangerous areas haven't caught fire. We have not been lucky in deaths caused by the forest fires. I think we are up to 22 deaths so far caused by the forest fires this year alone. Not all of those could have been avoided, but many could have been avoided by having healthy forests. We really need a discussion in this country about what a healthy forest is. We have to move away from thinking one side wants every tree cut down and the other side wants no trees cut down. We have to get to where we are thinking about the health of the forests and the beauty we want our kids to be able to see in several years. One of the areas I am particularly concerned about is just east of Cody, WY, on Shoshone National Forest. It lies right next to Yellowstone National Park. This is an area considered critical habitat for wolves, grizzlies, whooping cranes, elk, bison, mule deer, and several other animals that spend their time living in Yellowstone National Park when the snows get deep in Wyoming. The area is also home to a very severe pine beetle infestation that threatens to ignite and cause extreme damage to the park, the forest, and the surrounding communities. This summer, the National Forest Foundation--these are individuals who believe in putting their money where their mouth is. They put money into a foundation and, occasionally, they get matching money. They do pilot projects that allow experiments to be done in forests to make them as healthy as possible. I want to challenge any environmental group out there to share with me their numbers on how much of the money they collect goes to actually solving the problem they are talking about--not going into court actions to stop other people from doing anything, but actually working on the problem they are talking about. I highly congratulate the National Forest Foundation for putting their money where their mouth is. I got to see some of these projects which have created habitat, primarily for elk, and where most importantly they were able to drive down the fire danger, making some beautiful areas in Wyoming, getting rid of these rust-colored abominations that we have. A year ago there was a fire in Yellowstone Park. I went to that fire. I wanted to see how the new fire plan was working. I have to tell you that every firefighter I talked to was thankful that we have a policy now of stopping the burn as fast as we can. We used to have a policy of let it burn, and then when it started getting in the area of structures, we started to worry about it. Often the flames were maybe as high as 150 feet, and we could not do anything about it. So they really like this new policy. It is much safer for them to go in as soon as the fire starts and put it out. On the Storm King fire, as I mentioned, they noticed flame from these Canyon Creek Estates on July 3, and it was 3 days later before anybody went to take care of the fire. It was just a small plume of smoke quite a ways from homes. In a matter of a few minutes, it turned and became a danger to those homes. People living at the bottom of one of these areas are not very pleased to have a fire going alongside their homes, even if it is quite distant. They showed me some of their maps and, from where we were, we could actually see what they were talking about. They were concentrating 80 percent of their fire suppression efforts on one small part of Yellowstone Park, right at the edge of the park. The reason they were doing that was there was this big pine beetle infestation next to that. If the fire were to have jumped from Yellowstone into the infestation, it would have taken out the lodges and homes and the Boy Scout camp between there and the reservoir near Cody. They had meetings with people in the lodges and in the homes and made sure they had an evacuation plan. If you are a tourist in a lodge, and the owner of the lodge is explaining the forest fire evacuation plan to you, it doesn't make a very relaxing vacation. When you go home, you don't say: There is this great place outside of Yellowstone I would like you to visit, but you have to watch out for forest fire evacuations. At any rate, the firefighters there wanted to know what I was going to do about removing those pine beetle trees because they are a huge danger to the forest. Nobody wants to drive through charred trees to get to Yellowstone Park. There are trees that need to be taken out. They run through some ravines. What I talked about could actually happen with the area just outside of Yellowstone Park. Fortunately, we have the National Forest Foundation making some headway at getting a little bit of corrective work there. But it is nothing compared to what we need. Another example can be found in the Black Hills National Forest, where forest managers have been extremely lucky not to have to deal with fires in the Beaver Park roadless area or the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. These areas are suffering from severe storm-related damage and a mountain pine beetle infestation that has left acres of dead and dying trees. When trees are filled with dense and now dry underbrush, it creates a terminal condition for the entire ecosystem should something happen and a fire start in either of these areas. As I said earlier, we have been lucky these areas have not already caught fire. One fire did get close. The Deadwood fire came within a mile and a half of these areas. It also burned down some structures. I have to give you a report on that because, most recently, there has been a huge mud slide there. Mother Nature didn't observe some of our federal rules limiting erosion. Fortunately, the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, was able to include language in the emergency supplemental military bill that will allow the Black Hills National Forest to address this situation. If we are lucky, it will be done in a timely manner and before it is too late. I only hope we can provide that same kind of protection for the areas in Wyoming and the other Western States. Back when I was a Boy Scout, one of the requirements I had to complete to earn the rank of first class on my way to earning the Eagle Scout Award was to start a campfire using not more than two matches. I became very good at starting campfires and was well known for winning water-boiling contests at scout camporees. There are a number of tricks people develop in starting campfires. I had my own system that helped me to win. But no matter who you are, or what your trick may be, there are three basic elements to every fire--oxygen, fuel, and heat. Oxygen comes from the air and is readily available. Fuel is found in the wood, particularly dry wood that burns easily when enough heat is applied. Heat comes from a spark, match, possibly friction--not corduroy pants, however. We cannot do anything about oxygen. The fuel-- we can do and should do something about fuel. Usually, we cannot do anything about heat unless it is manmade. The best way to apply enough heat to start a successful campfire is to properly organize the wood in a way that allows flames to climb from the bottom of the firepit where you put the smaller, quick-burning sticks and tinder--to the larger, longer burning logs in much the same way as someone would climb a ladder one rung at a time. Some of you have fireplaces. That is the way you do it. You put in the small tinder and then bigger and then the logs, which you like to see burn--you don't if it is a forest fire. To start a successful fire, I began by carefully putting the wood shavings at the bottom of the fire--this would be my light tinder, or the first rung of the fire ladder. I then built a small teepee of sticks over my tinder--about the same as a ravine--and I added larger sticks, which is what catches fire when everything else happens. The larger pieces of wood go on the top. They draw the heat from the flames of the intermediate sticks below them. If you did it correctly, you would start your fire and boil a can of water before anybody else. What does this have to do with our national forests? If you go out on the ground now and look at the density of our national forests, they are laid out just like the campfires I was trained to build when I was a Boy Scout. At the bottom of every forest lies a collection of small dried out brush, leaves, and fallen bark. Over this pile of tinder is the next rung, which is made up of small to intermediate trees. These intermediate trees are then crowded in between the larger and older trees that make up the top rung, or crown, of the forest fuels ladder. This problem wasn't always as bad as it is now. There was a time when Mother Nature and the Native Americans took care of thinning the forests by regularly starting wildfires. Because the fuel loads weren't allowed to grow as dense as they are today, the fuel ladder didn't reach all the way to the big trees. Fire would burn up the tinder and thin out the intermediate and dead and dying trees. This promoted biodiversity, kept the intensity of the forests down, and in times of drought the competition for limited water resources was dramatically less than it is today. We now have forests that historically had 40 or 50 tree stems per acre that are now over 200 stems per acre. That is a 300-percent increase. When a fire starts in forests this dense, it quickly climbs the fuel ladders and races out of control. These crown fires are all but impossible to stop. The heat generated from all rungs burning at once sterilizes the soil and leaves nothing but desolation in its wake. This is only made worse with the added factor of drought. By adding to the mix stands of dead trees that are as dry and volatile as the tinder on the forest floor, one can imagine the threat this kind of fire can have on the forests and their surrounding communities, and there are more and more communities, more and more homes, more and more structures. It is a much better conservation practice, therefore, to step in and duplicate the effect historic, healthy fires had on our forests by using what we call mechanical thinning. This is a practice where our land management agencies hire experienced timber companies to remove the dense underbrush and carry out the smaller and intermediate trees, thereby leaving a forest that is healthy, more biodiverse, more fire resilient and that has a better mix of older and younger trees so the whole forest does not die off at once. The alternative is to allow Mother Nature to step in and conduct one of her catastrophic clearcuts, and when Mother Nature does a clearcut, as I already mentioned, she does not care about riparian zones or raptor nesting sites. Another factor that must also be considered, now that we are fighting the war on terror, is that these catastrophic clearcuts we are suffering in the West also pose a serious threat to our national security. It requires an extreme amount of resources and time to fight these fires and often includes military support. The Air National Guard facilities in Wyoming have been detailed as a support base for dispatching air tankers, and a lot of our Nation's airspace is now off limits to anyone but firefighting aircraft. We also have a report that the fires pose a serious threat to our Nation's communications facilities and to the power grid. There is no way to build an extensive communication and power system in the West without putting some of it on Federal public lands, including forests. The Federal Government is the largest landowner in the West, and we have rights of way crossing all over it. When we have fires such as we have this year, they are, at one time or another, going to threaten our Nation's utilities. We cannot afford in this day and age to surrender our Nation's greatest assets in fighting the war on terror; namely, its technological advantage created by our extensive energy and communications networks. In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in giving our Federal land managers the tools they need to decrease the serious threat of fire on our forests caused by the dangerous combination of drought and infestation. It is a very limited bill. I would even hesitate to call it a pilot project. But it is essential to get started and to get started now. If we can establish some good examples, we can show there can be healthy, beautiful forests, the way we envisioned them and dreamed of our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids being able to see them. We have to have better stewardship of our forests than what we are doing right now, and it does include cutting some trees. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his kind comments but more so for his leadership he is providing on this issue. The speech he gave now and the several speeches he has given, I know they have been extemporaneous and from the heart and contain a lot of information that people across this country need to have. I congratulate you for your leadership. I also congratulate Senator Burns, Senator Domenici, and Senator Allard from Colorado for their leadership on this. Yes, it is interesting there are not some speeches against what we are doing. We had an interesting vote on the floor yesterday. We had a cloture vote. We had a vote to stop discussion, not on this amendment but on the one that is just above it in the food chain. The purpose of that cloture vote was to keep us from getting a vote on having healthy forests in this country. I don't want people to think we are filibustering. We are trying to get a vote. We want a vote. But there are all kinds of tactics being used to stop us from getting a vote on whether we ought to have healthy forests, because everybody in this body knows how everybody in this body ought to vote on healthy forests. They ought to vote for them. We need a lot more dialog on what a healthy forest is. I admit that. I want to point out the amendment we are talking about is not even of significance to be a pilot project. It has virtually wiped out the chance to really do the job in our forests. But it does give us a chance to start showing what could be done in the forests. It is a shame anybody thinks that is worth stopping--just a small, pilot project. I did have a couple of other thoughts as the Senator from Idaho was speaking. We have covered quite a bit about what a waste fire is. It brings to mind a little controversy that was happening at the time I came to the Senate, and that was a discussion about timbering. There was a discussion about how we were doing the timbering in this country below cost. I am the only accountant in the Senate. I love looking at numbers. So when somebody starts talking about below-cost timber sales, that is in my category, that is something in which I am interested. So I took a look, to see how much it was costing us, as American taxpayers, to have timbering in the national forests. I saw some of the greatest gymnastics of accounting I have ever seen. We are taking corporations apart right now for their bad accounting--and they should be, if they are doing it wrong. But, by golly, somebody ought to take a look at the Government accounting while they are at it. They ought to take a look at timbering and the terrible accounting that was done on that. You know, you really should not be able to take all of the costs of a national forest, which include a whole variety of different things and are supposed to include a whole variety of different activities, some of which are recreation. Did you know that recreation has costs? We provide a lot of services to people who are recreating in the national forests, and we should. But we should not take those costs of recreating and charge them to timbering, to show that it is a bad deal. Let me tell you what kind of a bad deal we have going right now. Right now, we are talking about hiring a whole bunch of Federal employees to go in and clean up forests. There is a whole bunch of people out there who are already experienced at doing this. Yes, if you go back a few years in the methods they use, you can question some of those methods. We need to make sure those methods never happen again. But there is a right way to do it, and there are people out there who know the right way to do it, and do it the right way. Instead of having to pay for the whole job and throwing away whatever is taken out of the forests, they would pay for that right to cut out some of this dead timber. Some of this has already happened, over by Rapid City. The forests come right up over against the city, and they were worried about it burning the city up, so they hired some people to come in and do some logging. They hired another crew to come in and clean out the underbrush. The ones who did the logging were from a little town in Wyoming. They were from Sheridan, WY. Do you know what they had to say to me when they found out that a second crew came in to clean out the underbrush after they did the logging? They said: We could have done both jobs for almost the same cost because the setting up costs money. We are doing some really poor stewardship things in this country by not having a great dialog and getting the people involved who know how to do the things, because they have done them. There are jobs out there that could be done with credits for the lumber that might be usable. I have to tell you a little bit about the lumber that might be usable. It used to be that you had to have a pretty big tree to get anything usable for housing. There is an innovative company in Sheridan, WY, I learned about after the problem over by Rapid City. They are able to take the core of small trees and laminate them together to make beams for houses, 2 by 4's for houses, tabletops. They have some phenomenal ingenuity, and they have some products that will be released shortly-- again, with bits and pieces of very small trees. These are small businesses. I am really proud of small businesses in this country because I know that is where the ingenuity of the Nation comes from. If a company gets a really good idea, they may be bought out by a bigger company. The start of these ideas usually comes from one person having a great idea, being willing to put their money where their mouth is, take on all the risks for it, and prove that the product will work. We have several of those very small operations in Wyoming. You can take almost anything you can call wood and put it to use in something that will drive down housing costs and make some beautiful features. We need to be doing that. As I mentioned, they are paid to cut the trees, but they are paid to clean up the forests. So if you want to save a little bit of money, put people to work, and make sure we don't have the terrible waste because of fires, that is how we can do it. I hope everyone will support this amendment. It is not the amendment I would offer. It is far too small. It doesn't begin to take care of the problem. But I ask that you support the amendment and consider all of these things we have been saying. At least give some counterarguments, if there are any counterarguments. When we do these cloture amendments which are designed to eliminate this amendment without a vote, I hope everybody will continue to oppose that too. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, yesterday we marked the anniversary of one of the most horrific events in our Nation's history. On September 11 of last year, without provocation or warning, extremists took control of four of our planes and used them as weapons of destruction against us to cowardly take from our lives our friends and neighbors, our mothers and fathers, and our sons and daughters. As we watched those events unfold, during the subsequent rescue attempts, we saw more of our Nation's brave men and women lose their lives in the support and defense of others. It was not only a terrible loss of life. It was a loss of our most vital and valuable resource, our Nation's people and the potential they carried within them for greatness in so many different fields and endeavors of importance to them and to us. As we watched the images broadcast around the world, we all made a decision in our hearts to do everything we could to respond to the attack on our nation, our freedom, our liberty and our way of life. For each of us it meant something different, but for all of us, it helped to know there was something we could all do to help. For Congress, that meant expressing our strongest support for the President and his ambitious and necessary plan to end the global network of terror that has sown the seeds of despair and hatred wherever it has found fertile ground. The President's plan is to do more than defeat the forces of terror. It is to replace those seeds of anger and hatred with seeds of hope and peace. For our Nation's Armed Forces, it meant answering the call to duty and taking arms against an enemy who placed no value on human life. The rules of war are not many, but one unavoidable one is that it takes the lives of our young men and women. One of those we lost in the early stages of the war was one of Wyoming's own, Jonn Edmunds, an Army Ranger from Cheyenne, who gave his life in Afghanistan as he fought and died for a cause that he believed in. For all Americans, it meant an awakening of our sense of patriotism and our love of country, as we put aside our differences and unfurled our flags and proudly displayed them on our porches and windows. We came together as one, united, in support of our leaders and our President. We know from past experience that the effort to respond to challenges like this is not a quick or easy one. It takes a lengthy and determined commitment to principle if we are to succeed. I have no doubt our resolve will remain strong and we will be united in purpose, as we have done before when called to respond to a threat to our way of life. A little over fifty years ago, on a day that has been compared to this one, those who opposed us were heard to say after their attack that they may have done nothing more than awaken a sleeping giant. On that day in December and this one in September, we may have been a sleeping giant, but when the time came to respond, we did, and by so doing, we changed the world. We have to respond with strength and determination because those who attacked us chose their targets with such clear and evil intent. They attacked the World Trade Center, because of its symbolic representation of our economic power. They attacked the Pentagon because of its symbolic representation of the power of our military. And they sought to attack our Nation's capital because it is the heart of our government and it represents our democracy and our way of life. No one will ever forget where they were or what they were doing as they first heard the news of the terrorist attack on our Nation. We all sat and watched in stunned silence as events unfolded that are now forever etched in our mind. In the days that have passed since then, we have kept alive the memory of those we lost, repaired and restored what we could, and made plans to recreate what could not be saved. It has been a difficult and daunting task. Through it all the President has led a united Nation, committed to ending the threat of terrorism, not just for us, but for our children, and for all the children of the world who deserve to grow up and pursue a dream of peace, hope and opportunity. When the terrorists struck at the heart of our Nation that day they took something more precious than our buildings, and the symbols of American pride and ingenuity we all hold dear. When they took our loved ones from us, they also took the innocence of our children who had to learn quickly, and at a young and tender age, that there are bad people in the world who do bad things. And that all too often, bad things happen to good people. But, when they looked at us with questioning eyes, did any of us have a good answer to the question they wanted answered the most, ``Why?'' Fortunately, the President's leadership has enabled him to put together an international coalition dedicated to dismantling the network of terror and to bringing those responsible to justice, wherever they may try to hide. The conspiracy of terrorism can only survive in the darkness of hatred. It can not long survive when we bring the light of peace to bear on all the Nations of the world. That light is the symbol of freedom that our Statue of Liberty holds proudly and with purpose in the harbor of New York, not far from where the Twin Towers once stood. It is a light that will someday shine for everyone in every country in the world, and we will all live in peace and freedom. We are, and always will be, a Nation of individuals. We all have our own stories, our own goals and ambitions, and our own plans for our lives. But, when faced with a crisis, as we were last year, we come together as one united in our commitment that no one will ever have to endure a tragedy as terrible as the events that unfolded last year. Yesterday was a day of remembrance. It will always be so. May it serve as a constant reminder that we are one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. The lives of all those who were lost are like an unfinished symphony that has been left to us to continue and complete. We carry their dreams, their hopes, their ambitions, their challenges and their plans for the future with us. With God's strength and the support of each of us we will complete the work they started and ensure the safety and security of all people, of all countries, and of all regions of the world for generations to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4517.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Wyoming is experiencing a level of drought that has been devastating to the ranching industry of my State. In an effort to address a need that grows more and more desperate every day, I am cosponsoring the emergency agricultural disaster assistance amendment. This amendment funds the Livestock Assistance Program for both 2001 and 2002 and responds to a call for help that echoes through the ranching communities of Wyoming and throughout the west. The need for drought assistance is great, but the need for responsible legislating is just as great. As a cosponsor, I am fully supportive of the amendment before us; however, I must serve the needs of my State without breaking the budget. For this reason, I plan to introduce an amendment, with the support of Senator Grassley, to offset the emergency funding for the Livestock Assistance Program by reinstating payment limitations in the farm bill. I plan to pay my own way for the assistance I have advocated for over a year. My proposed amendment does its best to work within the strictures of a poor economy. I am not unmindful of the fact that the United States will have a deficit this year after 4 years of surplus. Alan Greenspan said to me a few weeks ago that one of the things this country needs the most now is fiscal responsibility. As a fiscal conservative myself, I plan to use an offset for desperately needed livestock assistance funding. Time has changed things since we voted for disaster assistance in the farm bill. The national economic picture isn't so rosy with the thunder clouds of the forecasted deficit on the horizon. In fact, the economic forecast is as stark as the weather forecast ranchers are reading in my State. This is a time for choices. The agricultural community can't have it all, but we can do our best to act responsibly and serve their needs. That is what my amendment would do. And it doesn't just serve the ranching community My proposed amendment is not an attempt to decrease the assistance going to our agricultural communities or to thwart the emergency agricultural amendment before us now. I have spent the last month in Wyoming and the devastation there is imprinted in my brain. This is the third year Wyoming and the west have been battling the effects of the weather and suffering through a drought that has had a severe impact on families and communities throughout the west. As an example, when I was home in Gillette I noted that we had received just over half of our normal level of precipitation since January. Water is so precious right now Wyomingites treasure every drop that falls from the sky as a gift from the heavens. Unfortunately, those gifts have been few and far between and, at the printing of the last crop report, 80 percent of Wyoming's range and pasture feed was rated in poor or very poor condition. That 80 percent represents a huge increase over our 5-year average, which was 32 percent. At the present time, only 13 percent of Wyoming has adequate topsoil moisture. That lack of soil moisture not only makes it impossible to grow crops, but it also has effects that ripple throughout our entire State. In our Popo Agie Conservation district a fracture opened up this summer in the ground. Soil scientists called in to determine the cause of the fracture said that the 5-foot deep crack had opened up because there is not enough moisture in the soil for the land to maintain its current status and structure. There is a good reason for that. The U.S. Drought Monitor indicates that significant parts of the west, including Wyoming, are experiencing an exceptional level of drought--level D4. That's the highest rating given for the status of a drought. As I noted, the effects of drought at a D4 level ripple throughout our communities. For instance, the drought has forced Wyoming's Governor Geringer to ban the use of fireworks or campfires on State lands. Many of Wyoming's towns and counties have followed the Governor's lead and banned similar activities on their town and county lands. These stipulations have ruined some businesses and forced others that rely on summer sales to go without their one chance to make a profit this year. It's a sacrifice, but everyone understands the reason for the ban. After all, in a region that has been plagued with fires, a single spark in an area surrounded by dry wood is a formula for disaster. Although everyone understands the need to take drastic steps to address the drought, everyone is also suffering from the devastating impact of a lack of water. It may be difficult for some of us to comprehend the lack of water out west because for so many of the fortunate citizens of the United States a sufficient supply of water is no further away than the nearest tap or faucet. There are even States suffering from the effects of floods. Wyoming, however, as is much of the west, is in desperate need of every drop of water we can find. The best example of what the drought has meant to our tourism and recreational industry is the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, which stretches 60 miles from the beginning of Bighorn Lake to Yellowtail Dam in Montana. Usually boaters have a choice of three ramps to use to launch their boats onto the lake. The lake has been dropping an average of 2 to 5 inches a day, so all the ramps have been closed. Since the drought began the water level has dropped at least 45 feet. The reservoirs in the rest of Wyoming are in even worse condition. If the drought continues, the dam at Boysen reservoir will no longer be able to produce electricity because the dangerously low volume of water means that there will be insufficient water pressure to spin the turbines and produce the electricity that the towns and people of Wyoming depend on for the necessities of life. As you can see, the drought has had an impact on just about every aspect of life in the west especially those activities and resources we have always taken for granted. With the drought, there will be no campfires, no fireworks, no boating, in short, the recreational activities of the spring, summer and fall are no longer permitted--or possible. True, this is a terrible problem, but for those who have to forego a year of these activities, it has been an inconvenience. For the agricultural community, however, the drought threatens their way of life and their ability to provide for their families. For the ranchers and farmers, the drought threatens to destroy the land and turn once valuable topsoil into dry dust that will blow away and never be restored to use again. For them, and so many others, the drought has been nothing short of a disaster. It's easy for me to tell you how my constituents are suffering because of the drought which has destroyed so much of the resources upon which they depend, but unless you hear with your own ears how bad things have become, you still might not believe it. Let me tell you a story about what your life would be like if you were part of a typical family in Wyoming that is barely holding on from the effects of 3 years of drought. It's July on the ranch and you have 1,000 cow/calf pairs. Normally, on a day like today, you would have paper and pencil in hand to calculate how much you expect to make in the fall when you sell your calves. Unfortunately, this is not a normal day or a typical year. For on this day you are using your pencil and paper to calculate just how bad the news will be in the coming months. Your bottom line this year will not reflect your margin of profit, but your margin for survival. Last year you sold 1,000 calves at an average of 600 pounds for $1.07 a pound. Your total income from your hard work came to almost $640,000. That is before any expenses. This year, the conditions brought about by the current drought have forced you to sell your calves earlier and at a lighter weight. That's the bad news. The worse news is that you have watched the bottom fall out of the cattle market this year. That means you'll be selling your cattle at a lower weight and at a lower price. It's a double whammy that is sure to destroy you this year and leave you muttering the old baseball adage to yourself, Wait till next year. So, you continue your calculations and note that you'll probably be selling 1,000 calves this year at an average of 500 pounds for only 80 cents a pound. That will bring you about $400,000--before you pay your expenses. Thanks to the drought, your total income has already dropped from $640,000 to $400,000. Unfortunately, your expenses and your bills have not taken a similar drop. In fact, they have increased--which you discover when you start working on next year's budget. After a terrible sale, you realize you have to start feeding your cows soon. Cows come from cows--so you have to keep some. Normally, this doesn't pose a problem because a rancher usually puts hay up all summer to start feeding the cattle in January. The drought ended that. You see, the drought stole the irrigation water you would normally use to grow your crops of hay and corn on the 1,000 acres of farmland. Adding up what that will cost you comes out like this--the cost of buying hay, the loss of corn production, the cost of feeding your cattle for four additional months, the cost of leasing additional grazing land and paying full price for irrigation water even though you only are getting \1/5\ of the water you pay for that adds up to about $355,000, again added expenses due to the drought. Remember, our total income came to $400,000. That means, after those expenses, you're left with about $45,000 to pay the normal operating expenses of the ranch, pay your mortgage, pay whatever help you have hired, make repairs on your ranch and the equipment you need--and, oh yes, feed and clothe your family. Ranchers have added up those numbers in just about every way you can imagine and come up with the same answer--they can't afford to keep their cattle. That's why the sale rings in Wyoming are full and overflowing--which only serves to continue to drive prices downward. As you can see, the double pressures of drought and the current depressed market have hit the ranchers in the West particularly hard. Ranchers are usually an optimistic bunch, but this time nature offers them no reprieve and little reason to hope. Farmers are having the same problem, but they have something our ranchers do not have--crop insurance. Here on the Senate floor we crafted a farm bill that ensured there would be help for our Nation's farmers. We fully funded the programs farmers rely on and made sure they'd have a source of support when the market turned sour. Unfortunately, we didn't do the same for ranchers. The rancher doesn't have a safety net to keep him propped up nor does his crop, the cattle he raises, have a price safety net. This is an inequity that must be addressed. As I listened to the heartfelt deliberations of the Senate on the farm bill, I heard a plea for the provision of $360,000 a year, which is the current payment limitation, in assistance to farmers. As the debate progressed I couldn't help but think of the ranchers who are struggling to make ends meet in Wyoming and throughout the west who are set to receive next to nothing to help them. It seems clear to them, and to me, and to anyone who reviews our farm policy that farm bill payments were not intended to subsidize every acre of every farm--nor every bushel produced. They were meant to help those in need and to keep family farms in business. Shouldn't that same logic apply to family ranchers and ranches? The American taxpayer should not be asked to keep large corporations or weekend hobby farmers in silk overalls and gold-plated pitchforks. Farm assistance was intended for and must continue to be directed at small and medium producers--family farmers who truly need help. Our rural communities depend on farms and the farms, in turn, depend on their communities. Too many small farms are not receiving the assistance that is needed while large multi-million dollar corporations continue to receive Federal funds for every acre they take over. Payments to large corporations have nothing to do with good farm policy but good farm policy has everything to do with family farms. Even farmers have recognized the desperate circumstances that face our ranchers and the inequity of their situations. Recently, we heard from an Illinois farmer who had a ``heart for Wyoming.'' He wanted to donate hay to help Wyoming ranchers struggling to find feed for their herds. Don't get me wrong, we'll be glad to get it, but it will be a drop in a bucket compared to what we need--though it will be a much appreciated drop! Just like the rancher with his pencil figuring out his budget, when you add it all up, there can be only one responsible conclusion and I have tried to present it in an amendment I plan on introducing later today. Only by reinstating tougher payment limitations on farm bill payments and using the savings to offset emergency feed assistance to livestock producers for drought disaster can we hope to save them, while also making a stab at fiscal responsibility. Current law has set payment limitations at $360,000, but that fails to count the gains farmers receive when they forfeit their crop to the CCC and keep the loan or when they use commodity certificates. These gains are not considered against the $360,000 payment limitation. Basically, payments are still unlimited. If we have learned one thing this year, it should be to avoid tricky accounting. My amendment would put in place real payment limits by counting all gain. My amendment establishes that limit at $280,000 per year. This should be an easy choice as the Senate has already voted its support of farm bill payment limitations by 61-33 on February 7 of this year. The reinstatement of payment limitations is directly in line with the proposal the administration made to the World Trade Organization to globally lower trade distorting subsidies. The proposal would limit trade distorting subsidies to five percent of agricultural production. Stricter payment limitations now would decrease the impact that this proposal would have on our farm bill programs. As world leaders we should set an example in word and deed for the rest of the world. We have spoken the word with the proposal. But as we all know, actions speak louder than words, so let us put our words into action today. Under the terms of my legislation, a savings of at least $500 million from the strengthened payment limitations would be applied to the Livestock Assistance Program. The Livestock Assistance Program is available to livestock producers in counties that have been declared disaster areas by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. It provides minimal financial relief to livestock producers that are experiencing livestock production loss due to drought and other disasters--but only if there is money in the fund. The emergency agricultural disaster assistance amendment before us now puts money in the fund and my proposed amendment would prevent that money from being another addition to our national debt. Once the LAP is funded, producers apply for relief and a formula splits the available monies according to their needs. It assists all producers who qualify, but the extent of the assistance that is available is limited by the program funding and the number of applicants. The more applicants there are across the country, the smaller the individual payment. Without the assistance and provisions in my proposed amendment, Congress is clearly picking the winners and losers of the current climate and economic conditions facing the West. This is not only unfair, it is unwise, too. We are continuing to slip outrageous benefits to corporate farms that don't need assistance while the West blows away in the wind. I'm only asking for what is fair and for what we should have done long ago. I urge my colleagues to support the emergency agricultural disaster assistance amendment. If we pass this emergency amendment, the ranchers who are suffering will know that they have been heard. I also urge my colleagues to support my proposed amendment after this vote. If we go on to pass my amendment, we will have made the choice to act responsibly while providing desperately needed assistance. It will give ranchers and our economy a fighting chance to survive. We owe our ranchers and ourselves no less. In conclusion, Mr. President, as I said, I am one of the cosponsors on this drought amendment. It is of critical importance to our State. We are in the third year of a critical drought. Each year has gotten worse. There has been less rain each year. Our ranchers are suffering terribly. I have tried on three different occasions to get some livestock assistance payments included in different bills. They have not made it through conference committee. At the same time we have taken care of farmers, we have provided them with payments of up to $360,000 each. It is my intention, once this amendment is disposed of, to submit an amendment for the body to vote on that would provide for a slight reduction in those assistance payments where we are subsidizing every acre and every bushel produced on every farm so that something, anything can go to ranchers. We are talking about $360,000 to farmers, zero to ranchers. If my amendment for livestock assistance payments passes, they would get approximately $8,000. Does anybody see the disparity here? Ranchers need help, too. They are having to sell off their herds. When they sell off their herds, it drives the prices down. They were getting $1.07 a pound. How much are you paying for beef in the grocery store? It went down 80 cents a pound. It has been down to 60 cents a pound. Your prices went up. There is a monopoly in the beef, but that is another issue. We will cover that at another time. We need to do something for the producers so we can keep putting food on the table. It is a huge part of the economy. It cascades into the rest of the economy. When farmers and ranchers can't buy things, then the merchants from whom they buy can't buy things. The economy implodes on itself. Transportation is important in this country, but food production is more important. If we can't eat, we can't travel. We need to do something for the ranchers. There is a way we can do it. We absolutely need to do something on drought assistance. I hope my amendment will be accepted to offset some of the livestock assistance payments with the other payments so that we are not busting the budget. The best way for us to improve the economy is to watch the spending. That would be a cross-payment. I ask for Members to watch for the amendment and to support the drought amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this is a sorely needed offset for sorely needed assistance. I wholeheartedly agree with the need for the emergency agricultural assistance we just passed. It is an emergency in Wyoming and most of the United States. Another pending emergency is the increase in our national deficit. We have a readily available and appropriate offset for at least part of the expenditure. I am suggesting we use it. By needing emergency agricultural assistance today--we have tacitly admitted that by passing Senator Daschle's amendment--we showed that we needed to add to the farm bill. So it has already been opened. This is an emergency, which is why I cosponsored the emergency amendment. However, this body already wanted payment limitations. We voted on February 7 of this year, by 61 to 33, to include payment limitations in the farm bill. This isn't an issue of chopping programs to provide agricultural emergency money when we don't do that for any other emergency. This is an issue of providing agriculture with emergency money and helping pay for it with something on which this body has already voted. There has been some discussion this morning to the effect that the lack of crops will lead to additional money anyway. The President has said he supports drought relief that doesn't increase the national deficit. We voted for agricultural assistance today. We should make every effort to keep it alive, and keep it in the bill until it is sent to the President, by showing our good will and intention to do what we can today to keep this desperately needed assistance from increasing the deficit. It is ridiculous to consider that this body will reject an amendment that provides an offset for an appropriations bill while entertaining a host of amendments that increase spending. The arcane rule seems almost slanted to increased spending. However, I recognize the importance of rule XVI. I really think this need for drought assistance, for an offset so that we aren't increasing the national spending, is entirely critical. But I will withdraw my amendment based on the Parliamentarian's ruling that rule XVI prohibits offering amendments containing general legislation on appropriations bills. I remain committed to funding a bill in which we offer my amendment that will offset the drought spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as a Senator from Wyoming and Chairman of the Senate Air Force Caucus, one aspect of my public service that I truly enjoy is the opportunity to work with remarkable people who are more like family than coworkers and colleagues. On Capitol Hill, we all know each other and we all feel each other's sorrows and share in each other's joys and triumphs. This is one of those occasions that brings both a touch of joy and sadness as we say congratulations and thank you at the same time that we bid farewell to someone who has devoted his life to the service of his country in the military and on the Hill, where he has made many friends among the staffs of our offices. We were fortunate that General Shaud served as the Executive Director of the Air Force Association. Before his acceptance of that post, he had amassed quite an impressive military career that began when he was commissioned into the United States Air Force in 1956. In his 50-year career General Shaud has served in the field and at U.S. Air Force headquarters in Washington. His later Air Force assignments included Chief of Staff for Personnel for the U.S. Air Force, Commander of the Air Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base, and Chief of Staff of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. He led and inspired those under his command and excelled while gaining greater responsibilities. I would be remiss if I did not point out that during his military career General Shaud was able to complete the requirements for a Master of Science degree, which he received from George Washington University--my alma mater. He also has a doctorate from Ohio State University and has served on the faculty of Air Command and Staff College. Over the years, General Shaud has amassed more than 5,600 flying hours and piloted several dozen different aircraft. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Distinguished Flying Cross and several other awards and citations for his outstanding service and leadership. For General Shaud, his retirement from the U.S. Air Force was just the end of one career and the beginning of another. General Shaud moved on to take on the responsibilities of the Air Force Aid Society and then later, the Air Force Association, from which he will now be retiring. Through it all, he has continued to impress with his leadership, creativity, personality, and ingenuity. He has been a role model for many and he will no doubt continue to inspire those with whom he comes into contact. I would also point out that without him, Congressman Cliff Stearns and I would have had a far more difficult time in our work to establish the Air Force Caucus. Now it is time for General Shaud to move on to another adventure in his life. I do not know what he will be doing, but I know he will be changing direction and heading off to face other challenges in the years to come. Good luck, General Shaud, and God bless. May you have many years of an enjoyable retirement and the good health to enjoy each day to the fullest.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President. I rise to share my thoughts on the trade bill we passed this afternoon that gives our President renewed trade negotiating authority Like many of my colleagues, I hail from a State that is particularly sensitive to foreign imports of agricultural products, for example Wyoming's two largest cash crops are sugar and cattle, and where trade makes a big impact on certain industries. I believe in fair trade, and I support the efforts of our President as he works to improve our multilateral and bilateral relationships. I have also worked diligently with Members from both sides of the aisle to improve our ability to participate in international trade. You will remember I urged my colleagues last year to vote for the Export Administration Act, a bill which would streamline our export control system so that items that do not need to be controlled may move more easily across borders. I believe that international trade is an effective way to boost the economy, but it must be done responsibly and carefully. I voted in favor of this bill today for three primary reasons. First, I strongly support the bill's provisions that recognize the sensitive nature of some industries. I believe the most essential provision related to import sensitive goods is the mandate that requires the President to consult with Industry Advisory Committees and the International Trade Commission on certain negotiations. This bill requires the administration to notify and gather input during trade negotiations from people like ranchers and farmers who produce import- sensitive products. Second, as an original cosponsor of the Craig-Dayton Amendment, the new language in the bill addressing trade remedy laws is critical. The bill provides that if negotiators don't listen to concerns about proposed changes to trade remedy laws, Congress can pass a formal resolution of disapproval. This puts up a red flag to the negotiators that they are treading on shaky ground and may want to rethink their position. In addition, I am also pleased this bill sets rigorous enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws as a principal negotiating objective and increases reporting requirements for possible modifications to trade laws. Third, there is specific language in this bill that addresses a major concern of sugar producers. Wyoming sugar producers have been hurt by a ``sugar laundering'' operation being conducted through Canada. The process starts when a commodity trader in Canada blends sugar, water and molasses in a ratio that would exempt the mixture from U.S. import duties Canada enjoys under the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. This mixture is then trucked across the U.S. border to a factory controlled by the same commodity trader where the sugar is separated from the molasses mixture. The sugar is then sold in the U.S. market free of tariffs and the rest of the mixture is returned to Canada to be ``stuffed'' again. The ``sugar loophole'' and others like it would be closed by this trade bill. The bill makes the determination that stuffed molasses should be considered imported sugar and therefore subject to tariffs. It also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to monitor other existing or likely circumventions of tariff-rate quotas and report on these to the President. Beyond these specific reasons, I cast my affirmative vote today because fair trade is essential to the economic growth of all industries. The next step is rule and regulation, and I will carefully watch to ensure that the interests of Wyomingites are protected.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I just returned from a normal weekend. On Fridays, my wife and I usually go to Wyoming, and we come back on Sunday night, which actually turns out to be Monday morning by the time we make the trip. This time I was able to concentrate a little bit of time in the area just outside Yellowstone Park, on the east side of Yellowstone Park between Cody and the park. I was there last year. There was a fire inside Yellowstone Park. I wanted to see how the new fire plan was working. I got a very extensive and excellent tour. It was educational, but it pointed out some problems that need to be taken care of in the West. Of course, those problems wouldn't be quite as extensive except for the drought we are having. This is the third year of the drought in Wyoming. One of our lakes in the northern part of the State that drains up into Montana is dropping almost 2 feet a week. It is down 125 feet from its normal level. Most lakes in the Nation would be dry if they were down 125 feet. This one still has some water, but it doesn't have boating anymore. That not only affects recreation in the area; it affects the communities in the area because they do not get the revenues they would normally get from tourism and visitors. Ranchers are having to sell off there herds. They don't have any grazing because of the drought. This is the third year they have had to diminish their herds. Most of them are completely wiped out from that aspect. We have another little problem. That is the way the Tax Code is arranged. The Tax Code says if you have to do an emergency sale and you have some revenue in the next 2 years you can apply that so you don't have to pay taxes. They have been wiped out with the herds, and they are going to have to pay taxes because there is no revenue to take it against. There are many peripheral issues that happen with the drought. We need to concentrate in this body on fire prevention in our forests. This is what some of the forests look like right now--just tremendous blazes. You can see the way the tinder lays up in layers. It forms a chimney, and it goes to the top of really big trees. When it gets to the top of the trees, the fire itself creates a wind. The wind will sway the trees, and the trees throw the crown a half mile away to start another fire. Once a fire starts, it can be very extensive. We have a new plan that says put it out as soon as you can. That is helping tremendously. We used to let it burn. We tried to do some of what they call natural foresting. When natural foresting was actually natural foresting, there weren't people inhabiting those areas. In this particular area near Yellowstone, there is a huge pine needle forest because of pine bores. They bore into the trees when they are young. They eat a circle around the tree, and it kills the tree. Then the tree looks rusty. The next year and the year after, all the needles are gone, and it is just a standing dead pine tree. Of course, the best time for it to burn is when it is all rusty. When the needles are dried out and they burn, they form a chimney effect, going up to the top of the tree. That is how huge parts of the forests are between Yellowstone Park and Cody, WY, right now. Those trees need to be taken out. If they are not taken out, a Boy Scout camp, 12 lodges, and 68 homes will go up in smoke. Last year, when there was a fire in the park, they pointed out the pine needle forest and the need to get those trees taken out. I have been working on that since then. We haven't been able to get it done. There are a few very easy court actions that can prohibit that sort of thing from happening. But it is absolutely essential. Those lodges have post-evacuation plans. As the fire starts, they have to call all their guests in and explain how they are going to be able to get out of this valley to keep from being trapped by the fires, fires such as these where you can see the animals are having a little bit of concern about how they could be trapped by the fire. That cuts into the tourism. People don't go home and tell about the great experience they had. They go home and tell about the extreme pressure they were under with fires. Consequently, they spread the advertising in a very negative way. We want it to be in a positive way. There are things that can be done and that should be done. I will be taking some more time to explain what they are and steps that are being taken by the Forest Service at the moment. But more extensive steps need to be taken. Senator Daschle has an amendment on a supplemental spending bill to take care of some of the problems bordering Wyoming in the Black Hills. It very explicitly allows them to go in and cut down those trees, which will reduce the amount of tinder. There are some ways that we can do that. I introduced a bill, S. 2811, the Emergency Forest Rescue Act of 2002. That gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior the ability to recognize emergency conditions that exist in the forests and allows the land managers to act to protect them from the extreme threat of fire, specifically those suffering from drought and high tree mortality. Those two circumstances have to be present. It also requires the approval of the Council on Environmental Quality. I have some protections built in and some ability to move forward quickly so we don't burn up huge valleys and extend the fire into Yellowstone Park, which is one of our great natural treasures. In fact, all of our forests should be national treasures. Present conditions do not make them as usable as they could be or as pretty as they could be. I yield the floor.