Floor Statements

Madam President, what I want the American people to understand is that this administration's environmental policies are awful, starting with arsenic, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, clean air, and what they have not done with Superfund. We can go through a litany of bad decisions. We are going to have a bipartisan bill brought up this week dealing with global warming. The most glaring issue is this administration doesn't believe global warming is taking place.

So when Mike Leavitt called me and said he had been asked by the President to be the EPA Administrator, I said: Mike, why would you want this job, with what this administration has done on the environment?

I said: I like you and I will do everything I can to help you. But you should understand that this administration's environmental policy is the worst this country has ever had.

So I have done what I could to help Mike Leavitt get through this process.

The main thing I wanted to say and why I have such warm feelings about Mike Leavitt goes back many years ago. I was a sophomore in college. I went there on an athletic scholarship at a junior college in southern Utah called the College of Southern Utah. My wife and I decided we were going to get married between my sophomore and junior years, and that we did. Prior to doing that, I went to an insurance agent in Cedar City, UT, by the name of Dixie Leavitt. I didn't know who he was.

I said: Mr. Leavitt, the reason I want to buy a health insurance policy is because my wife may get pregnant and we don't have the money to pay the hospital bill. I want to make sure the insurance policy covers pregnancy.

So we went away to another school, several hundred miles away, to Utah State University. A couple years later, she became pregnant. Well, we were going through the process of contacting doctors, and she has the baby and the insurance policy does not cover maternity. So I call Dixie Leavitt long distance, which I could not afford, to Cedar City,

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

Mr. President, Senator Leahy asked that I fill in for him for the next little bit. We have an amendment to offer. We have no one here from the majority, but I am very confident there is no problem with the Senator from North Dakota offering an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so the Senator from North Dakota can offer his amendment.

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

Mr. President, let me say initially that in my experience in the Congress I have learned to recognize the quality of the senior Senator from Indiana. He is a fine man, an outstanding legislator, and his heart is always in the right place.

I understand the importance of the State Department authorization bill. I have understood it for the more than two decades I have been in the Congress. It is important legislation. On this side of the aisle, we understand that and that is why we have worked so hard over the years to try to move forward. As the Senator from Indiana knows, it certainly was not his fault, but we had great difficulty moving the bill previously as a result of one Senator. On this legislation he now wants to make a part of this foreign operations appropriations bill, we have spent 2 days on this bill and during that period of time we had some good debate. We adopted some amendments. But we on this side feel we should move forward as with all legislation and not cut it off. In effect, that is what is happening.

So without belaboring the point more, I raise a point of order that this is legislating on an appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I think the question of the two managers of the bills: How much time do we need to spend on this? It is my understanding the issue that has been raised by the Senator from Indiana will take a two-thirds vote to pass the Senate. I am sure there are a few people who wish to speak on this, and I am sure on our side we could arrive at a reasonable period of time prior to a vote.

I think that is totally reasonable, if I could interrupt. We need to check with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Harkin has agreed to take 15 minutes. We don't know of anyone else who wished to speak on it, other than the manager of the bill.

I hope, if we can go into an extremely brief quorum call, we can come up with a time agreement very quickly.

No, on the motion to suspend.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

Will the Senator yield just for a brief question?

Mr. President, Senator Byrd is on a very important appropriations conference committee. He is going to recess tonight at 6 o'clock. Senator Byrd cannot be here until 6 o'clock. On his amendment he would like to speak for 20 minutes.

Senator Landrieu, as I have said before, has an amendment she wishes to offer. She said she could speak for 15 minutes on her side on that.

Senator Harkin has an amendment. If that cannot be worked out, he wants 15 or 20 minutes. And there, of course, are a couple of other things that need to be resolved. I just indicate that everyone on our side, as Senator Leahy has announced, should come over and start offering these amendments because I have been told by the two leaders they want to finish this bill tonight. If that is the case, the way things are moving here--which is not very fast--it would be a long night. So I hope they would come over and offer these amendments on both sides.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd already has an amendment pending and he is here to speak on it. We have been waiting for him. His amendment is already here.

I say to my friend from Kentucky that Senator Byrd is here. I hope that before we dispose, with a recorded vote, of the Landrieu amendment, we will allow Senator Byrd to speak and, if necessary, we can have two votes in succession.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for Senator Landrieu to offer her amendment; that following the offering and her statement, Senator Byrd obtain the floor and be allowed to make a statement. He indicated he would take approximately 20 minutes.

That would be appropriate with us on this side.

The majority has not seen that amendment. They don't know what they are going to do with it or whether we can have a vote.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2004

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1968 relating to the Leahy amendment on war crimes in Africa.

I appreciate the question asked by my friend, the senior Senator from Vermont. As you know, water is vital for the life and health of people and ecosystems and a basic requirement for the development of countries. Yet, around the world, people lack access to adequate and safe water to meet their most basic needs. Water resources and the related ecosystems that provide and sustain them are under threat from pollution, unsustainable use, land-use changes, climate change and many other forces. Water shortages and degradation disproportionately affect arid regions of the world, many of which lack the technical and financial wherewithal to effectively address the problems. Water and poverty are closely related. In areas of water scarcity, the poor are hit first and hardest. Conversely, water is the single factor most limiting economic development in many arid regions. There is, of course, a huge diversity of needs and situations around the world, but together we have one common goal: to provide water security. This means ensuring that freshwater, coastal and related ecosystems are protected and improved; that sustainable development and political stability are promoted; and that every person has access to enough safe water at an affordable cost to lead a healthy and productive life.

Water security is closely linked to national security. As we in the west are fond of saying, ``whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting.'' That may sound tongue-in-cheek, but in reality, there exists a long history of international tensions and conflicts over water resources, the use of water systems as weapons during war, and the targeting of water systems during conflicts caused by other factors. Strategic areas of the Middle East, South and Central Asia, South America and North Africa are plagued by recurring tensions over transboundary allocation of scarce water resources.

I appreciate the question from my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky. To achieve water security, we face the serious challenges of meeting basic needs, securing the food supply, protecting ecosystems, sharing water resources, managing risks, valuing water, and involving stakeholders in governing water wisely, while maintaining a balance between social, political, cultural, environment needs. The challenges are formidable, but so are the opportunities.

There are many experiences around the world that can be built upon. For example, through our experiences in managing scarce water resources in the desert State of Nevada, we have gained a valuable knowledge base upon which other arid and water-starved regions can build. Scientists in our university system are recognized among the foremost world leaders in water management in these lands. As an important initiative to increase water security, they have prepared an impressive proposal to launch an International Water Security Center.

The center would be a clearinghouse for scientific research in support of water conflict resolution. As a focal point for advanced research and education in water security issues, it would bring together scientists, engineers, water managers, and policy

makers from arid and other water-starved regions worldwide. Through collaborative research exchanges, the center would promote long-term capacity building in developing countries, which would benefit from our leadership in desalinization, water treatment, hydrologic modeling, water-use efficiency, and other technical approaches. The center would also support education of young Americans in international water policy and security, an area of expertise that we will certainly need in the future. The wide spectrum of cultures and landscapes would broaden the outlook of everyone involved, fostering the multidisciplinary approaches needed to ensure project viability and longevity.

The University and Community College System of Nevada would provide an excellent home for the center. Through the research and educational programs undertaken by its major institutions, this University System is known throughout the world for its expertise in water resource and watershed management. For example, the Desert Research Institute, or DRI, is a unique blend of academia and entrepreneurship. Grounded in fundamental research, DRI and its Center for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific understanding to the management of scarce water resources in countries around the world while addressing needs for economic diversification and science-based education.

The University of Nevada, Reno, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas collaborate with DRI and conduct nationally recognized research and educational programs in their own right. The University of Nevada, Reno, UNR, has one of the Nation's largest and well-known education programs in the study of groundwater. A new international program at UNR sends undergraduate and graduate students to work with local villagers in some of the world's most impoverished nations. This training works both ways, helping the world's poorest people and training American students to work safely and effectively overseas. At the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, UNLV, the interdisciplinary educational program in Water Resource Management considers the scientific and engineering aspects of the hydrologic sciences within the context of policy and management issues related to water and water security. The expertise of UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law in the field of water rights and water allocations is also a fundamental to this program.

With its strong tradition of fundamental research and collaboration, the University and Community College System of Nevada is perfectly poised to host an International Water Security Center. The University System is overseen by a chancellor and a 13-member Board of Regents.

I am requesting an annual appropriation of $1.25 million dollars each year for the next 3 years. This funding would be used to develop an administrative structure, identify potential collaborators and projects, initiate ``seed'' projects, educate and train American students in water security, launch research initiatives, and develop and implement a plan for continued center activities without the need for additional Congressional appropriations. The funding would be administered by the University of Nevada Chancellor's office, and made available to scientists and researchers throughout the University System. The Chancellor's office has a long tradition and expertise in administering federal, state and non-profit research grants.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I can just say this prior to the consent being entered into the Record, we have a number of amendments. It sounds like a lot. I have spoken to the chairman and ranking member of the committee, indicating that I am not sure all of the amendments on this side will even be offered. For example, Senator Feingold thinks these will be accepted. If they are not, he will take a 10-minute time agreement.

I think we can move through these amendments quite rapidly. As I think everybody knows at this stage, the vast majority of the Senate favors this legislation. I think we should acknowledge that this agreement was reached with some effort today as a result of the advocacy of the Senators from California. They did not want this matter to be brought up this week because the fires are raging as we speak in California. They are both scheduled to go out there sometime this week. It would have been terribly inconvenient.

I appreciate everyone's cooperation. The majority and Senators on this side had other amendments they wanted to offer. But understanding the difficulty and the problems in California at this stage, we arrived at a point where I think it is fair to everybody.

Reserving the right to object, I, along with Senator Leahy and others on this side, are terribly disappointed that the action on the Dorgan amendment tomorrow will bring to a close, at least at this stage, further action on this most important appropriations bill. My memory could be wrong, but not too wrong, that in the past we have moved through this bill pretty quickly. The Senator from Kentucky has been involved in this for a long time, as either the ranking member or chairman of this subcommittee. I think he and Senator Leahy, who has been involved with this for many years, have done an outstanding job.

There is one issue that has held this up and that is getting more money for global AIDS. The President supports this effort to get more money for global AIDS, and I am disappointed he and his people have not weighed in more on this, although knowing the Senator who is wanting to slow this down, does not want this to move forward, I am not sure what good it would do for anyone to talk to him knowing what an advocate he is and how strongly he feels about things.

The point I am making is I think we should have a vote on this, whatever it takes, and move on. On this side, I think everyone would have to acknowledge we have cooperated on these appropriations bills, but we cannot go to other appropriations bills when we have an appropriations bill that is on the floor and somebody finds a tough vote. It is not right. We in good faith have had our Members not offer various amendments. We have been very discrete in the amendments we have offered, and I would hope the night will bring more understanding to this most important issue of global AIDS.

It is not going to go away. It will appear on this bill or some other bill. I know my friend from Kentucky has worked very hard for hours today trying to move forward. This is his bill. Again, I express my concern and disappointment but have no objection to the unanimous consent agreement that has been suggested.

I ask that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky modify his request as follows: That the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7; that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the Snowe amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that the substitute amendment which is the text of S. 476 as passed the Senate, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill as amended be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

I also object.

The Chair is correct.

Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, we need to advise Senators of what is going to take place at 5:30. There has been a change in the schedule to be announced shortly by the Senator from Oklahoma. It is my understanding that following the statement of the Senator from New York, the Senator from Utah wishes to speak for up to 5 minutes on the Leavitt matter.

Will the Senator from Oklahoma go ahead with the UC?

If we have to extend the vote on the judge for a couple minutes, we can do that.

Will the Senator go ahead with the UC? We will make sure everybody is covered.

How long?

The Senator from New York has the floor.

I say to the Senator from New York, we are in no way trying to speed up your speech. How much longer do you anticipate speaking?

Mr. President, I want to make sure this includes Senator Hatch's request for 6 minutes before the vote on the judge. I would also ask, Mr. President, if Senator Leahy wishes to speak for up to 2 minutes prior to the vote on the judge, that he be allowed to do so, along with 2 minutes for the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the committee.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart. It was one year ago on October 25 that I lost my friend, and this body lost a great Senator. We all have our own memories of Paul Wellstone.

We remember the passion of his beliefs. He was an uncompromising idealist who stuck to his principles and never wavered. When he fought for an issue like mental health parity, you knew he would never give up.

We remember Paul Wellstone for his bravery, because even when his cause was unpopular, he followed his heart. He used to say, ``We should never separate the lives we live from the words we speak,'' and he followed that path.

We remember what an inspiring speaker Paul could be. The first time I heard him was in the Capitol Rotunda at a ceremony for new Senators, and I was immediately impressed. Later, he came to Las Vegas and spoke to a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I have never seen a group so fired up.

We remember his physical strength and stamina, even in the last year of his life when he was in so much pain. He worked out at the Capitol Police gym, and he still holds the record there for doing the most chin-ups.

We remember Paul for his unassuming nature. He waged his first campaign in an old green school bus. There is no telling how many mechanics across the State of Minnesota worked on that vehicle to keep it running.

We remember Paul Wellstone for all these reasons. Most of all, we will always remember how easily he made friends and how deeply he touched people.

In this Chamber he had good friends on both sides of the aisle. But Paul Wellstone also befriended working people, like the janitors who cleaned his Senate office. One night, Paul waited until midnight so he could meet them in person and tell them thanks. And in Minnesota, the affection for Paul Wellstone cut across all segments of the population.

A few days before he lost his life, Paul was riding around the State with Peg McGlinch, a member of my staff who is a Minnesota native, and her father. They were running behind schedule, as is often the case on those hectic campaign trips, but when they spotted some union workers on a picket line, there was no question that they would stop and offer support. As Paul hopped out of the nondescript car, people seemed shocked to see him, until one woman ran over, gave him a big hug, and declared, ``You're my hero.''

Paul Wellstone was a hero to a lot of people. I went to Minnesota after his death, and I was amazed at the spontaneous memorial that sprang up all around his campaign headquarters. I saw thousands of flowers and candles. I read handwritten notes thanking Paul for work he had done to help people, and looked at pictures of him with people whose lives he had affected.

And one thing I will never forget was a crayon drawing of a train chugging up into the sky, with a child's simple scrawl that read, ``Paul Wellstone, the Little Engine that Could.''

Paul Wellstone clearly had a special relationship with the people of Minnesota. His relationship with his beloved wife, Sheila, was also extraordinary. And their lovely daughter Marcia, who also perished in the tragic accident, was so much like both of them. She was an amalgam of all their best qualities.

Today, as we remember how much Paul Wellstone meant to so many people, our hearts go out to his family--his sons Mark and David, his grandchildren, and other family members. Also to the families of Paul's staff members who were lost with him: Mary McEvoy, Will McLaughlin, and Tom Lapic.

I said my heart was heavy today, and that is true. Paul Wellstone was my friend and I miss him. But I also feel grateful today that I had the opportunity to know this remarkable man, and I am grateful for my memories of him, which will never die.

If the Senator will yield, I have had the opportunity today to speak to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky on a number of issues. One of the things that I did not speak to him about--and I have had a number of inquiries on this side--is if we are unable to adjourn by next Friday, November 7, the date that the distinguished majority leader has suggested, a real question arises as to what we are going to do the Monday and Tuesday of the following week. We need to have a decision made on that real soon because it is Veterans Day and there are some parades around the country in which people want to be involved. So I say to the distinguished majority whip that if the leader could make a decision on that as quickly as possible, many people would appreciate that.

I would simply say to my friend from Kentucky that I believe that is a wise decision. We have a lot to do and every day that we are not here means that much longer we have to go into Thanksgiving and, perish the thought, thinking about Christmas.

If I could just say one more thing.

I know my veterans in Nevada would understand because a lot of the work we are doing is directly related to them anyway.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska, and I ask unanimous consent that both sides have their full 30 minutes.

Mr. President, a brave Nevadan by the name of LTC Jeffrey Tice was in the first Iraq war. He was flying an F-16 when it was hit by enemy fire. The plane went down. He was initially captured by Iraqi troops who were roaming the desert. He was, shortly thereafter, taken to the Iraqi authorities, which began 46 days of terror. He was held in captivity and tortured by the Iraqis for these 46 days.

During the time he was there, he endured brutalities that are difficult to describe. They intended to break his spirit and his body. For example, he was forced to play Russian roulette. You know that Russian roulette only is a valid game when the revolver has bullets in the chamber. And, of course, he was forced to play Russian roulette with a loaded weapon. With the same pistol, he was beaten about the head. Among other things, his jaw was dislocated, his eardrum was punctured, and on other occasions he was beaten on the head. His legs were beaten with a wooden plank until he could not walk. He had an electric wire tied around his head. The shocks received were so severe that his body curled up in a fetal position violently, with every muscle in his body contracting in pain.

These are only some of the things the Iraqi regime did to Colonel Tice. They did not break his spirit, but they did harm his body. Today, these many years later, he still suffers physical problems as a result of the torture. Not only does he have physical problems, he still suffers pain as a result of the torture.

In 1996, we passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allowed State Department-designated terrorist states, including Iraq, to be held liable for personal injuries suffered by torture victims, including American POWs. In November of 2002, President Bush signed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which included a provision designed to ensure that Americans could collect court-ordered damages from the frozen assets of terrorist states. During this time, 17 gulf war POWs and their families sued the Republic of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was also sued, as well as the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

They filed these actions to seek justice for themselves--like Colonel Tice, those people who were brutalized--and to prevent future torture of others. In July, Judge Richard Roberts of the Federal district court ruled against Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and found them liable for the torture of these POWs. In his opinion, Judge Roberts said, among other things, the importance of his decision was to deter the future torture of American POWs.

His judgment was correct. It was appropriate. But the State Department and Justice Department have refused to honor it. Earlier this year, the President confiscated the $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets that have been held in private banks since 1990. The money was sent back to Baghdad for use in the reconstruction, a move which effectively blocked the efforts of tortured POWs to collect judgments in their favor. The administration has continued to spend this money knowing full well this judgment is pending.

At the same time, the Department of Justice asked Judge Roberts to allow it to intervene in the case, stating its intention to have the judgment erased. Judge Roberts, in his wisdom, declined to allow this.

These brave POWs made great sacrifices to protect the freedoms we have, the ability we have to salute the flag and to do things we take for granted. They now need our help.

I am pleased to report the Senate took action last week to uphold the rights of the POWs and all Americans to be free from torture, hostage- taking, and acts of terrorism committed by foreign dictators and tyrants. My amendment, which was accepted as part of the supplemental Iraqi budget request, makes perfectly clear the longstanding intent of Congress that those who torture and abuse U.S. citizens can and should be held accountable.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who committed despicable acts. He committed atrocities against his own people and against Americans. In fact, as we speak, many believe he is behind the continuing attacks that are taking place in Iraq today.

Now, in a real irony--or, perhaps better stated, an unreal irony--our Justice Department is trying to shield Saddam and his former regime from the accountability American law demands. My amendment, which was accepted, would have protected the rights of private citizens, including three brave Nevadans who were captured, taken hostage, and used as human shields by Saddam Hussein during his first gulf war. All of these brave heroes who were tortured at the hands of Saddam Hussein are merely seeking to hold Iraq accountable for its crimes and deter the torture of any American citizen by a terrorist state in the future.

The civilized world cannot let such crimes go unpunished. The perpetrators must be held to account. I hope the conferees and the President will accept this amendment in the conference and not let the current system go forward.

Justice must prevail, and if these people are not allowed to go forward with the judgment they have obtained and the protection they demand, it would not be a good day for American justice.

We have no one in the Chamber so that would work out fine. Certainly the request by the Senator from Kansas is one that is fair, and I ask unanimous consent that the Chair approve his request.

Madam President, the Senator from Texas is controlling the time on the majority side and has asked that the time be extended 10 minutes, equally divided. We have no objection on this side.

Madam President, I simply say to my friend from Minnesota, before he gets too excited about the economy doing so well, that that explanation should be given to the 3 million people who have lost jobs during this administration. This is the first President since Herbert Hoover who has had a net job loss during his tenure in office. I hope there is a turnaround. But before we come here and start giving speeches about how great the economy is, we need to explain that the economy is losing jobs on a monthly basis. We are not losing as many as we did, that is true, but we are still losing jobs. People need to work.

This is the worst job creation record of any modern President. It is the weakest economic growth under any President in 50 years. If there is a recovery, it is certainly jobless. Poverty is increasing. Real income is falling. We have a record deficit. No one seems to mention that.

There were cheers from the Department of Commerce this year that the deficit--when you add in the surplus of Social Security--is only about $500 billion. They were cheering about that. There is a record deficit. There is a record debt increase. We are going to have to increase it again before this next summer is out. It is the worst fiscal reversal in history.

Keep in mind that during the last years of the Clinton administration, we were actually spending less Government money than we were taking in. There has been about a $3 trillion loss in market value in the stock market.

I think the time is a little premature to start coming here and giving cheerleading speeches about the greatness of the economy.

Madam President, I believe we need to do something for healthy forests. I know how hard the Senator from Oregon has worked on this, along with others. I applaud and commend them for working.

Nevada, of course, is a State very large in area and we have had some devastating fires in the last several years. Something needs to be done about it.

In response to my friend from Idaho, who I have the greatest respect for, he did not mention by name the Senator from New Mexico, but he is talking about Senator Bingaman, speaking in not a favorable light about my friend, the junior Senator from New Mexico. I have served with Jeff Bingaman. We were elected to Congress the same year. He is a man of intellect. He is Harvard educated, and he has a fine legal mind. Certainly he is not anyone, by virtue of his record, which would be easily obtainable, to go whatever way the environmental community wants him to go.

I can speak from experience. I have issues where I believe the Senator from New Mexico should have followed what I felt was the right way, and the environmental community supported it, and he did not go that way.

All I am saying is Senator Bingaman is one of the finest Senators we have in this body. He has some problems with this legislation, some of which are based upon the fact he is the ranking member and former chairman of the committee which some believe should be the authorizing committee and not the Agriculture Committee. I do not take a position on that because I do not know which committee should be involved. But as the ranking member of that committee, Senator Bingaman has some concerns and there are some questions he has asked. I do not think that is out of line in any way.

So without belaboring the point--and I certainly know Senator Bingaman can defend himself, but he is not here--I want to simply say he is one of the fairest people, one of the people who understands Senate procedure and rules as much as anyone I know, who is also interested in doing something about the forest fires sweeping the west.

New Mexico has had them. We know one fire which got so much attention was a manmade fire when a Forest Service burn got out of control and nearly wiped out one of the defense installations there in Los Alamos.

I would hope everyone understands Senator Bingaman is trying to come forward with what he believes are some serious questions about the way this legislation has moved. If his questions are answered, there will be a number of us who will look to him for leadership on this bill.