Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Let me, first of all, commend my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for the hard work he has been doing to try to get us to a prescription drug bill for Medicare beneficiaries that will, in fact, preserve the Medicare system but will also meet this very real need that most seniors and all of us have, to be able to afford prescription drugs.

Let me say a few words about the issue of judicial appointments before I then talk about a couple of other issues I want to briefly visit as well.

As I approach this whole question about judicial nominations, I guess my starting point is to ask, how is the system supposed to work? How is this system of choosing and nominating and confirming of judges supposed to work when it involves Federal judges?

I think it is supposed to work the way it generally has worked with this President; and that is, it is supposed to work the way it has worked with regard to these 168 judges who have been confirmed. The truth is, these judges who were confirmed, they were nominated by the President, were confirmed by the Senate These are judges who are conservative in their political philosophy, in their legal philosophy. That is sort of a given with this President. We understand that. Everyone understands

that. Democrats understand it. Republicans understand it. I have no problem with that.

This President was elected as our President. He has the right to choose judges who have a conservative perspective, and clearly that is what he has done, and clearly that is the way the system is supposed to work. But as I think about how the process should work, it seems to me the very first step the President should take--and the President and his assistants, his general counsel have taken with regard to most of those 168 judges, maybe all of them, at least the ones I am familiar with--the first step is to go to the Senators from the State involved and ask those Senators if these are acceptable persons to be nominated.

That is exactly what has a happened in the case of judicial nominations from my home State of New Mexico. And I am very appreciative of the President and his counsel for including me in that discussion and in that decisionmaking. Essentially, what has happened is that my colleague, Senator Domenici, and the White House have identified a person--in the case of each vacancy we have had in New Mexico--they have identified a person who they thought should be nominated for that position, and they have asked me to talk to that person and give them a response as to whether that was someone I would support as well.

In each case, I had been very pleased to support those nominees. In each case, I have had the chance to sit with those people, talk to them, acquaint myself with their qualifications. And, as I say, I have been very pleased to support those nominations.

That is the way the system, in my opinion, is supposed to work. But once the President has determined that the Senators from a particular State--at least one of the Senators, but preferably both Senators from a particular State--will support the nomination of a judge or judicial candidate from that State, then, of course, it is much easier to get the full Senate to go along with that. Frankly, that is the way the system ought to work.

I have had circumstances where individual Senators have come to me, Democratic Senators have come to me and asked: Are you sure you want us to support this nominee for a judicial position in your State? because my staff tells me there are questions--and this and that. I am pleased at that point to be able to respond, yes, that I have checked out these nominees, I have determined that they are people I support, and I urge that the full Senate support them.

Now, we have two judicial nominations coming before us today that are coming up for a vote on cloture that have not come up before, but in both cases my understanding is they are being presented as nominees over the strenuous objection of both Senators from the State from which the judges come.

I have difficulty understanding why I should want to support a judicial nominee from a State if the Senators from that State oppose that nominee. I try to think of how I would feel if I were opposed to a nomination from my State and the President and a majority here in the Senate were trying to confirm that nomination over my strenuous objection.

I think we have some obligation to our colleagues to defer to their own understanding and their own knowledge and their own opinion on these issues, particularly as it affects their State. Now, not exclusively; we do not have to defer. But I am just saying that as a precondition for going forward and considering a judicial nominee, we ought to begin by asking: Do the Senators from the State the judge comes from support the nomination? That seems to me to be a threshold question.

In the case of Carolyn Kuhl, on whom we are having a cloture vote later today, as I understand it, and in the case of Janice Rogers Brown, about whom we are also having a cloture vote later today, I am informed that the Senators from California have determined they do not support these nominations. They are urging that the Senate not go forward with these nominations. They urge that the Judiciary Committee not report these nominations. And in spite of all of that, the President says we are going to do it any way.

We are doing this over the objection of the Senators from California. That, to me, is a cause for concern. We are talking about a breakdown in the traditions and a breakdown in the system that is supposed to be functioning. To me, that is a clear breakdown in the system for choosing and nominating and confirming Federal judges.

So I hope we can get back to a policy with regard to all the nominations that come from the White House and this President that is consistent with the experience I have had in my home State of New Mexico; and that is, that before a nomination is sent to the Senate for confirmation, Senators will be asked to give their opinion as to the appropriateness of the nominee.

One good thing about this country--it is certainly true in my State; I am sure it is true in every State in this country--we have a wealth of very capable, honest, hard-working members of the bar who would love to serve on the Federal courts. There is no shortage of good people for these positions. Accordingly, it is not difficult to find a person to serve in these key positions who has the strong support of Senators, Congressmen, and public officials in these States.

The list of organizations and public officials, and both California organizations and national organizations, that oppose the two nominees I have referred to here is extensive, and I have been given that list.

Twenty-two members of the California congressional delegation have indicated their opposition to our going forward with the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. We have members of the Judiciary Committee of the California Assembly who have come out in opposition to our going forward with Carolyn Kuhl's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There is a very long list of individuals and organizations.

I know neither of these nominees personally myself, but, clearly, I have to give deference and some consideration to the opinions of those who have worked with them.

I am very pleased to yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, in response to the question, I certainly would say it has been my experience that this does work. In fact, when the name of someone is being considered for appointment to a Federal judgeship in my State of New Mexico, I have been getting calls. I get calls from lawyers who have worked with these individuals. I get calls from people who have tried cases against these individuals. Some of them, frankly, are favorable and some may not be as favorable.

I get a great deal of feedback on these individuals who are being considered by us for nomination. And, of course, I have the ability, as a Senator from New Mexico, to call people whose opinions I respect and to say: You have spent your lifetime practicing law in the courts in New Mexico. What do you think about the qualifications and the temperament and the appropriateness of this person for this kind of a judicial position? Based on that kind of feedback, then I am in a position to advise the President, advise my colleagues, advise anyone in the Senate that, in my opinion, this person would be well qualified.

I am sure that same process occurs with every Senator in every State, and it should. I think that is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they talked about advice and consent. I think they were talking about Senators being able to give their advice before the President made a final determination as to who would be elevated to a judicial position, and Senators being able to either give their consent or withhold their consent.

It is far preferable, in my view, if that advice and consent is requested and provided at an early stage in the process, not once the nominee has been sent up here, not once the President has had a press conference at the White House with the nominee in attendance. I think it is in many ways unfair to the people being nominated to have them pushed to that stage without the necessary advice and consent having been sought from the Senators in question.

I think that is the unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in this morning, that there are individuals being pushed upon us as appropriate members to be elevated to court of appeals positions, and the nominations are being strongly opposed by the Senators from the States from which those individuals come.

So I think it would be unfortunate in the extreme if the Senate were to disregard the views of the Senators from those States and say: Regardless of their views, we are going to go forward here, regardless of the feedback they have provided; regardless of the numerous groups and individuals who have come forward to state objections here, we are going to push this nomination through the Senate.

I do think there is a very valuable purpose the Senate serves; and that is, to slow things down. That is what we have done here as to some of these nominees. These are nominees who, in my view, should have been better vetted with the Senators from the States involved.

If those Senators had been given an opportunity to make their case to the President and to his counsel at an early stage, perhaps we could have avoided some of the votes we are going to have to cast this morning. I think that would certainly be preferable.

Has my time expired, Mr. President?

I will yield back my time, Mr. President.

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

I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It would provide $5 million in additional funding to the nutrition education and training section of the School Lunch Program. The funds would serve to develop new programs and to implement existing programs in the Department of Agriculture Team Nutrition Program. Nutrition education programs are being chronically underfunded and have been for a great many years.

We have authorized in current law--the law about to expire, as I understand it--50 cents to be spent for every public school student to be served in this country. That is 50 cents per year. This is not 50 cents per day; this is 50 cents per year.

I was speaking to Senator Byrd from West Virginia and he said for nutrition education we ought to at least give them as much money as it costs to buy a candy bar. That is not an unreasonable goal to set for this great country. Last year, we did not begin to reach the 50 cents per student per year. Last year, we provided $10 million.

This chart shows the funding level beginning in 1996. In 1996, we provided $23.5 million. This is for the combined funding of the nutrition education training and the team nutrition. As I understand, this nutrition education training is essentially money that goes as grants to the States to help them provide some kind of nutrition instruction in their schools. We provided $23.5 million in 1996, $14.25 million in 1997, $11.75 million in 1998, and down to $10 million in 1999.

We are again, in the current fiscal year, being presented with an appropriations bill that calls for $10 million.

My amendment would increase that by another $5 million.

This team nutrition component in this Department of Agriculture effort is an integrated behavior-based comprehensive plan for promoting nutritional health among our Nation's schoolchildren. We have over 47 million children in school in this country--that is kindergarten through 12th grade--47 million in the public school system.

There are three behavior-oriented strategies the Department of Agriculture has tried to pursue. One is to provide trading and technical assistance for child nutrition food service professionals; that is, the people who provide lunches and breakfasts and serve meals so that the meals being served meet certain nutritional standards.

The second strategy is to provide multifaceted, integrated nutritional education for children and their parents. This tries to build some kind of motivation on the part of young people to remain healthy, to be healthy, to maintain some type of healthy lifestyle.

The third strategy is to provide support for healthy eating and physical activity by involving school administrators and other school and community partners.

The Agriculture appropriations bill proposes $10 million for this year's funding. In my view, that is woefully inadequate. It is inadequate because without additional funds, many States are not able to provide any nutrition instruction.

Why is it important at this point in our Nation's history to concern ourselves with nutrition instruction? It is important because over the last two decades obesity rates have more than doubled among children and they have more than tripled among adolescent children in our society. Today, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two-thirds of the deaths in this country. The major risk factors for these diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. Those are the main causes that lead to the problem of obesity that leads to the other problems I have recounted.

Today, one in seven young people are considered obese; one in three are overweight. This is a crisis. It is a crisis for the future and a crisis for our health system.

The Surgeon General estimates that at the minimum we spend each year $100 billion dealing in our health care system--this is taxpayer dollars--$100 billion in our health care system, through Medicare and Medicaid, and other health programs, on diseases that are directly attributable to obesity. That is a rough figure, obviously. But they think that is a modest or conservative figure.

You compare that $100 billion to $10 million and you have a very interesting comparison: $10 million is not 1 percent of $100 billion, it is not one-tenth of 1 percent of $100 billion; it is one one- hundredth of 1 percent of $100 billion. We have all heard, all our lives, the expression an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We are not asking for anything like that ratio. If we were doing that, we would say we should provide one-sixteenth as much. Instead, we are providing one one-hundredth of 1 percent as much on nutrition education as we are spending to deal with the problems that could be avoided.

Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to become obese adults. The overweight problem results in all sorts of physical diseases: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, decreased self- esteem, and discrimination. They face discrimination throughout their lives as a result of this problem.

There are only 2 percent of children who currently consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations for a healthy diet the U.S. Department of Agriculture food guide calls for, so the Department of Agriculture is in the business of trying to give young people and adults throughout our society advice. They do issue a food guide, the food guide pyramid, they call it. But, unfortunately, there is no followthrough instruction in our schools to try to really assist in getting this information to young people at a time when it can dramatically affect their habits for the rest of their lives.

I believe nutrition education is vital to growing a generation of healthy adults in this country. This amendment would be a very modest step toward getting some additional funds for this purpose. It would provide funding at the State level for implementation and administration of nutrition education training.

This is a program that has existed on the statutes for years. Unfortunately, it has not been funded. It is time to begin getting these figures up to a more reasonable level.

As I say, Senator Byrd from West Virginia made a suggestion which I think would be a good goal for us to set. He said we should at least provide as much funding per student per year as it would cost each of them to buy a candy bar. That is not unreasonable. I hope we can take this modest step and move ahead.

Let me cite a little bit more information because there was a good hearing on this subject that occurred earlier this year. I want to cite the testimony of the Department of Agriculture on the very issue I am talking about. This was a hearing on the reauthorization of the authorizing legislation here, and the Department of Agriculture representative at that hearing testified about their position. This is testimony from Eric Bost, who is the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, testifying before the Agriculture Committee in the Senate. He said in that testimony that the administration supports:

healthy school environments to address the epidemic of

overweight and obesity among our children by providing

financial incentives to schools that meet the dietary

guidelines. . . .

He said:

The immediate reasons for overweight among our children are

clear and uncomplicated. . . .

Then he goes through a list, of which one of the items in the list is:

the lack of strong program of nutrition education and

physical education in many schools. . . .

That is exactly what I am talking about. We have no strong program. You cannot have a strong program when you are spending $10 million in a nation of 280 million people, with 47 million young people in our elementary schools and our high schools.

He goes on, in that same testimony, to state, unequivocally:

We support expanded funding to support the delivery of

education messages and materials in schools.

When you look at this chart, it is obvious we have not been expanding the funding. Funding has been stagnant for most of a decade. In fact, it has dropped from where it was in 1996, very substantially.

The reasons for my amendment are very clear. The justification for it is overwhelming. In a wealthy nation like this, we can do better. We cannot afford to do as little in this area as we have traditionally done. The new crisis we face with obesity among children is a strong wake-up call to all of us that we need to begin doing something significant in nutrition education.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was hoping to get a resolution of my amendment before we switch to another amendment.

I do object at this point.

Mr. President, could I just ask the manager a question through the Chair.

I would be interested--obviously, my purpose is to get more resources for this activity. If the manager and the ranking member think they would be able to find a better offset, or find some other way to provide some resources for this or think that is a possibility, then I would be glad to defer to them. I picked this offset because I could not get any suggestion from anyone at the staff level, at least, of a better way to do this. If you think there may be a way to do this, I would be anxious to hear about it.

Mr. President, with that assurance, I will not go ahead and push this to a vote at this point. Let me thank my colleagues for their assurance and urge, if it is possible before we complete action on this appropriations bill, before it goes to the President for signature, that we find some additional funds this year. That would be most appreciated.

I will be glad to work with them with regard to next year as well. This obviously needs to be a multiyear effort, if we are going to get funding for nutrition education up to a level that actually has an impact. That would be my hope.

With that understanding, I withdraw the amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. President, while I have the floor, I would like also to say a few words about an amendment the Senate will be debating later today. The amendment will be offered by Senator Daschle and relates to country-of-origin labeling of meat and produce.

I have long supported mandatory labeling of country of origin and was pleased this provision was included in the farm bill the President signed into law last year. New Mexico Cattle Growers and the New Mexico Farm Bureau strongly endorsed this legislation.

I do believe consumers have a right to know where there food is coming from. I am disappointed that there are some in the meat packing industry and the administration that are trying to block implementation of this important legislation. Grudingly, the administration last month released a proposed rule for mandatory labeling.

I believe the administration's proposed rules are far more complicated than they need to be. However, I hope Congress will allow the comment period and rule making to continue to give both proponents and opponents of labeling a fair opportunity to weigh in on this issue.

I am pleased to cosponsor the Daschle amendment and hope that it passes.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, legislation that will extend and strengthen our Nation's special relationship with two young Pacific Island nations, the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI.

The special ties between these islands and the United States have a long history, from the 19th Century New England whaling industry, through the terrible years of World War II, to the period of United States administration under the United Nations Trusteeship system. From 1947 to 1986, the U.S. governed these islands on behalf of the U.N. and was responsible for promoting the political, economic, and social development of the inhabitants. In 1986, the U.S. fulfilled its obligations to the U.N. with implementation of the Compact of Free Association, approved by Public Law 99-239. The Compact formally ended U.S. administration and allowed the FSM and RMI to achieve self- government and international recognition. The Compact also allowed the U.S. to continue the special security relationship forged during the Trusteeship. Now 17 years later, the Compact continues to provide for mutual defense and for political and economic stability in a region of significant interest to the U.S.

Prompt enactment of H.J. Res. 63 is needed to update and extend provisions of the Compact, particularly those economic assistance provisions which expired on September 30, 2003, but which have been temporarily extended.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the scope and importance of his security relationship because it provides one of the compelling reasons to support this resolution. Our mutual security includes the obligation of the U.S. to defend these nations as if they are a part of the U.S., and it is based on a simple geographic reality--the FSM and RMI lie between the state of Hawaii, and our Territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. During World War II, the islands of the FSM and RMI served as hard-fought stepping-stones in the Allied defeat of Imperial Japan. To help assure that such a struggle will never need to be repeated, the Compact grants the U.S. the right to deny access to the islands by the military forces of other nations, as well as the right to veto local actions that the U.S. determines are incompatible with its defense responsibilities. The Compact also provides that the FSM and RMI will sympathetically consider U.S. requests for military basing rights. In the past, U.S. nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands played a central role in the development of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. Today, the missile test range at Kwajalein continues to play a vital role in maintaining the nation's ballistic missile capability and in developing missile defense systems. Enactment of this legislation could secure U.S. access to the missile test and space surveillance facilities at Kwajalein beyond 2016.

A second major element in the special relationship established by the Compact is the mutual interest in promoting economic development. This goal has been approached by providing a combination of financial and program assistance. Significant economic development occurred from 1986 to 2003, but the remote and resource-poor island economies continue to be based on the government-sector, and they are heavily dependent on U.S. assistance. Development has also been hindered by the Compact's weak accountability mechanisms and by the island governments' poor planning and management capabilities.

A third element in this special relationship is the Compact's provision granting FSM and RMI citizens the opportunity to live, work, and study in the U.S. as resident aliens. This privilege provides an outlet for the islands' population growth, but it has also resulted in significant migration to Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. Due to relatively poor health and education conditions in the FSM and RMI, these migrants pose a disproportionately high impact on social services in the jurisdictions to which they migrate.

Finally, the Compact included a full and final settlement of all claims resulting from the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program that was conducted in the RMI from 1947 to 1958 and which significantly contaminated the islands of four atolls.

I commend the representatives of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the United States for their work over the past 4 years to extend and strengthen the Compact. The two new Compact agreements they concluded are nested within this joint resolution and will

provide the assistance needed to assure continued economic development and mutual security in partnership with the United States. The administration transmitted the legislation on June 27, it was introduced as S.J. Res. 16 on July 14, 2003, and ordered reported by the committee, with amendments, on September 17. It would provide about $4 billion in funding over the 20-year period from fiscal year 2004 to 2023 for grants, contributions to trust funds, payments to extend the lease at Kwajalein, the cost of certain domestic services and programs, and $30 million annually to be allocated among Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa to mitigate the impact of migration from the FSM and RMI. The package would also continue program assistance to the FSM and RMI through a range of domestic programs

To improve the effectiveness of U.S. assistance in the future, the amended Compacts have enhanced accountability mechanisms. For example, instead of providing financial assistance in the form of direct cash payments, funds will be disbursed through sector grants targeted to priority areas such as health and education. A new ``Fiscal Procedures Agreement,'' will establish new planning and reporting requirements, including the establishment of a joint economic management committee with each nation. These committees will have a U.S. majority membership, and the power to impose grant conditions and withhold funds. Finally, the Compacts anticipate the end of annual U.S. financial assistance after 2023 and provide fro contributions to two trust funds that will become an alternate source of funding after that year.

The U.S. currently has access to military sites at Kwajalein Atoll until 2016, but this legislation provides an opportunity to extend U.S. access until 2086. The new arrangement regarding Kwajalein was negotiated with the Marshall Islands national government which has not yet reached agreement with all of the landowners involved. Accordingly, a new land use agreement will need to be concluded between the landowners and the Government of the RMI in order to give effect to the new access agreement. Until that time, this legislation requires that the increased payments be held in an interest-bearing escrow account.

Two issues that were not resolved during the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's consideration of this resolution are education and disaster assistance. As pointed out earlier, U.S. assistance under the Compact is provided through a combination of financial assistance and program assistance. In the case of education, U.S. domestic programs account for roughly 40 percent of education funding, with local and U.S. financial contributions making-up the balance. These U.S. programs were first made available to the FSM and the RMI as an initiative of President Kennedy during the Trusteeship period and were continued under the Compact as negotiated and approved under President Reagan. The administration testified on this resolution in July before the Energy Committee that continuation of these programs was assumed when it renegotiated the Compact. Unfortunately, as the legislation moved forward, the House and Senate HELP Committees opposed continuation.

It was clear during the committee's consideration that the Compact's goal of promoting economic self-sufficiency would fail without maintaining current levels of support for education. This could be done by either continuing these programs, as assumed by the administration, or by providing an alternative source of funding.

The Energy Committee recommended continuation of critical programs and the ``cash-out'' of the remainder. Three domestic education programs that would be very hard, if not impossible, for the island governments to duplicate would continue: Pell Grants, programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and Job Corps. Pell grants to students attending the two community colleges in the FSM and RMI rate vital to the survival of these two institutions and there is consensus to support their continuation. IDEA serves a special population in the islands that, without the extension of the U.S. program, is unlikely to be adequately served. Finally, an exception is made for Job Corps because of the role it plays in preparing young people to enter the workforce. This is particularly true at Kwajalein Atoll where the U.S. Army vigorously supports the continuation of Job Corps because it helps maximize local employment at the U.S. Army base there.

For the remaining Federal formula-grant programs administered by the Departments of Education and Labor, and for the Head Start Program, the committee recommended termination of the islands' eligibility and providing the islands with mandatory funding to replace, or ``cash- out'', the actual programs. However, the compromise agreed to with the House would provide an authorization for a discretionary, not mandatory ``cash-out'' of the programs to be terminated. The replacement funding under this proposal would continue to be provided by the appropriations subcommittee for Labor, HHS, and Education, but instead of being allocated from the appropriation for each of the national programs, there would be a new, separate appropriation of equal value to supplement the education sector grants provided by the Secretary of the Interior under section 211(a) of the two Compacts.

The initial authorization levels for these two new discretionary grants are based on estimates obtained from the Congressional Research Service and the Department of the Interior's Federal Program Coordinator, $12,230,000 for the FSM, and $6,100,000 for the RMI, and the authorization includes an inflation adjustment. Once appropriated, this supplemental funding would be used in accordance with an agreement between the appropriate cabinet officer and the Secretary of the Interior, and would be disbursed and monitored in accordance with the Compact's Fiscal Procedures Agreements with the FSM and RMI, respectively.

I support this compromise reluctantly because I am uneasy with discretionary funding for such a critical element of the Compacts. Nevertheless, it appears to be the best that can be worked out under the circumstances and I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to make sure that the funding is shifted smoothly from the allocation for each of these national programs to a new FSM-RMI supplemental appropriation of the same amount. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their cooperation in resolving these difficult education issues, and Stephanie Monroe and Jane Oates of the HELP staff for their time and effort in working out this compromise. I particularly want to thank Senator Akaka for his hard work and commitment to this legislation, and to recognize Noe Kalipi and Melissa Hampe of his staff for their contributions.

A second item that was not resolved during the Energy Committee's deliberations was disaster assistance. The administration proposed that the current eligibility of the islands to participate in the disaster assistance programs of FEMA be terminated and replaced with eligibility for assistance from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA. This approach was clearly flawed because OFDA is not required to rebuild essential infrastructure following disasters.

In response to this need, the administration transmitted a new proposal last week that would provide for assistance from both OFDA and FEMA. However, the details for implementing this new joint-program approach were not set forth in a subsidiary agreement, as has been done with other programs to be extended to the islands. Accordingly, a compromise has been developed that would continue FEMA assistance, as recommended by the Energy Committee, while the administration undertakes negotiations with the islands and FEMA on the new approach in which all parties seek to conclude subsidiary agreements that would clarify implementation of the new approach. To help assure that all parties will negotiate in good faith, the compromise further provides that the statutory language for the new approach, as submitted by the administration, would go into effect 5 years after the date of enactment of this joint resolution. It is my expectation that subsidiary agreements and any negotiated changes to the statutory language would be agreed to between the island governments and representatives of FEMA, OFDA, the

State Department and the Interior Department long before that deadline. I thank Senators Inhofe and Jeffords for their help in resolving this matter and I look forward to working with them next year to assuring that the islands have the disaster assistance that is essential to the success of their economies, and to the success of the Compacts.

I believe that we have taken two excellent agreements, as negotiated between the U.S. and the FSM, and between the U.S. and the RMI, and we have improved them so that they will serve as a solid foundation for future relations. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his leadership on this legislation and for his commitment to continuing the bipartisan approach that has characterized the committee's work on insular affairs. Finally, I wish to recognize the work of Al Stayman and Kellie Donnelly of the Energy Committee staff for their dedication and hard work in guiding this legislation through the process.

In 1986, the United States fulfilled its obligations under the Trusteeship and established a successful partnership under the Compact of Free Association to advance the interests of the United States, the FSM, and RMI in mutual security, and to economic development. Today, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.J. Res. 63 and to affirm our Nation's commitment to mutual security, economic development and to the continuing special relationship with the islands, and the people, of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Of course.

I agree. These grants, if funded, would continue the level of assistance which the administration and the island representatives assumed would be available to meet the education goals which they jointly established in the new compacts.

Certainly.

Would my colleague yield for a brief point?

As transmitted by the administration, the joint resolution approving the amended compacts would have eliminated FEMA and replaced it with the U.S. AID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, OFDA. However, during consideration of this joint resolution by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee recommended reinstatement of FEMA's availability.

Yes. We hope and expect that an agreement will be concluded and transmitted by next June 30 and do not believe it should take the full 5 years.

Mr. President, I defer to the manager of the bill. If he would like time to review the amendment that I have given him, I have no problem with that course of action.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniela Ligiero, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, last Thursday the Senate passed H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I voted for the bill because I believe we need to take action to bring our forests back to good health, and there are some good provisions in the Senate-passed version of the bill. For example, the Senate version allows communities to provide recommendations on reducing the threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire in community wildfire protection plans.

In addition, two amendments that I offered were adopted by the Senate. The first amendment requires collaborative monitoring of the social and ecological effects of projects. Without this requirement, we will never be able to rebuild trust between rural communities and the agencies. The second amendment encourages the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to hire local contractors for forest thinning projects in order to create jobs in forest-dependent communities.

Even so, I continue to believe there are serious problems with this legislation. Most significantly, the bill fails to tackle the main obstacle constraining the Forest Service from improving forest health which is the agency's harmful policy of borrowing from proactive forest restoration accounts to pay for firefighting. Some of the other major issues raised by the Senate language include a lack of any new funding to reduce hazardous fuels; curtailing public participation in the management of public lands, including the establishment of a new so- called ``pre-decisional'' review process; and lack of protection for National Monuments, roadless areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.

I tried to fix these problems by offering and cosponsoring amendments, including one to give the Forest Service new authority to borrow funds directly from the Treasury when firefighting costs exceed available funds. Unfortunately, this amendment did not prevail. However, Senator Burns, Senator Nickles, and others offered to work with me to seek solutions to the ``fire borrowing'' problem. I accept their gracious offer and look forward to addressing this issue in the future with their cooperation and assistance.

Other amendments that were offered by myself and others to improve the bill were defeated. Nonetheless, I voted for final passage of H.R. 1904 because the Senate version was an improvement as compared to the one passed by the House earlier this year.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for yielding me time.

Mr. President, I have heard three arguments against this legislation since I have been privileged to hear this debate. The first argument is there is no such thing as climate change. Climate change is a reality if we are to believe the scientists we hire or who are willing to advise us.

A clear consensus of the scientific community is there is a change going on. The global climate is warming, and that is a fact.

The second argument I have heard is, OK, even if there is such a thing as climate change, there is no real proof human activity is the cause of that climate change. Again, I point out the scientific community believes it. The scientific community says human activity over the last 150 years has been a major contributor to the problem. Most of these human activities that contribute to this problem relate to energy production and use. Carbon dioxide emissions account for 84 percent of the annual emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States and 98 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions are associated with energy production or use.

The third argument which I have heard this morning is we do not totally understand this issue and, therefore, the Congress should not be legislating. If we use that standard, we will not legislate on virtually any subject in this body. Clearly, we have to take the best information we have, make the best judgments we can, and then if we find we are in error, we can adjust our policies as we move forward.

As the ranking member of the Energy Committee, I have argued repeatedly for the last several years that part of our national energy policy and part of the energy legislation we were trying to craft should be a recognition of the importance of climate change, and we should include in a bill some provision for dealing with climate change issues. Unfortunately, I am informed the energy conference that is still in existence, although it does not meet, will not include any language related to climate change, even though the bill the Senate produced does contain some provisions in that regard.

This is an issue of global concern. It is sad that the United States is not leading this debate. We should have a leadership role, both because we have the capability to understand the science and to do the science, and the technology. We also have the capability to come up with an appropriate response. It is sad we are not doing that.

This administration has totally failed to lead with regard to this issue. The President's plan to deal with the greenhouse gases has been little more than a business-as-usual approach. The President's voluntary target of an 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity over the next decade sounds impressive until one looks at the data. The approach will allow climate-altering pollution to continue to climb as long as it increases more slowly than our economy grows.

The voluntary commitments would meet a goal that are no more aggressive than business as usual. Greenhouse gas pollution intensity in the United States has been declining because the part of our economy that is growing the fastest is the service sector, which produces fewer greenhouse gases than manufacturing for certain. President Bush's voluntary approach will not change the trend in greenhouse gas emissions over what is likely to happen anyway, and it certainly does not put us on a path to reductions in the future.

We have been trying a voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse pollution for almost a decade, and greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased 14 percent. Many of the commitments industry is making today are the same or similar to what these companies promised nearly a decade ago.

While negotiations on an international framework to address global warming continue for the next several years, our domestic industry will have to make significant investment decisions on new energy infrastructure. We have no domestic framework on greenhouse gas emissions that would guide or even inform these investment decisions. Addressing these issues up front would reduce business costs and risks. Maintaining our present course will increase the probability of future economic losses and waste in the energy sector.

This Climate Stewardship Act is a modest first step in trying to deal with this important issue. Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain deserve great credit for forcing this issue to be considered in the Senate today and to be voted on. They have put together an innovative framework that deserves our attention. It is unfortunate, frankly, that this bill was not able to receive the hearings in committee it deserves. The debate should be no longer about whether climate change is a reality, which is what we have been talking about on the Senate floor, but instead on how we can deal with it. Ideally, the debate we would be having on the Senate floor would be to consider amendments, to consider alternatives to this proposal, so we could come to grips with this very difficult issue. I would prefer to be offering amendments on ways in which the framework could be improved, but given the politicizing that has surrounded this scientific and environmental issue, I am left with only one option, and that is to vote for the bill and send a signal that the Senate must show leadership on climate change.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, although I interrupted the clerk before the clerk was able to read the entire amendment, I think probably the best way for me to start my description of the amendment is to go through and read some portions of it so Members know what I am proposing.

There are two parts to the amendment. It adds two new sections to the bill in order to provide meaningful new authority and actual resources to protect communities at risk from unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire.

We had a little bit of debate yesterday--and we will again today-- about what exactly has been the problem and what the policy mistakes and failures are here in Washington that have contributed to this problem.

I would suggest to you that the major failure which has occurred here in Washington that has contributed to the problem is the one I am trying to address with this amendment; that is, inadequate funding with which to proceed not only to fight fires but to do the necessary thinning and the necessary restoration activities that we are all in agreement need to be made.

The first section that this amendment would add reads as follows: I will read through the most significant parts of it. It says:

The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the request of

the Secretary of Agriculture--

And, of course, that is where the Forest Service is located, in the Department of Agriculture--

make available to the Secretary of Agriculture, out of any

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums

as may be necessary in each fiscal year to carry out fire

suppression activities. The Secretary of Agriculture may make

such request only if fire suppression costs exceed the amount

of funding available to the Forest Service for fire

suppression in a fiscal year.

What we are saying is we are going to do our best here to appropriate money for fire suppression; that is, firefighting activities. But to the extent that we fall short, the Secretary of Agriculture can go to the Department of the Treasury and get funds with which to do that firefighting.

We have a second part of this section. It is an audit provision. It says:

Not later than 180 days after the Secretary of Agriculture

exercises the authority provided by this section, the

Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture shall

submit to the Secretary and to the Congress an audit of

expenditures of funds provided under this section. Upon a

determination by the Inspector General that specific amounts

of such funds were used for purposes other than fire

suppression, or upon a determination that specific

expenditures of such funds were both unreasonable and

excessive, the Secretary, not later than 30 days after

receiving the audit of the Inspector General, shall reimburse

the Treasury, out of unobligated balances for the Forest

Service for the fiscal year in which the fund were provided.

. . .

Essentially, we are doing an audit. If there is any misuse of funds, if they are used for anything other than fire suppression, then the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture shall essentially take those funds out of their hide and deal with the situation that way.

That is the first part of the amendment.

The second part of the amendment that I am offering is entitled, ``Community Protection And Burned Area Restoration.'' It says, in general:

During fiscal years 2004 through 2008, the Secretaries [the

Secretary of Agriculture who has jurisdiction over the Forest

Service and the Secretary of the Interior] shall carry out a

joint program to reduce the risk of wildfire to structures

and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands, including

country-owned lands, tribal lands, nonindustrial private

lands, and State lands, using the authorities available

pursuant to this section, the National Fire Plan and the

Emergency Watershed Protection Program.

We are talking about funds to do restoration work on land that the Federal Government doesn't own.

The second part of this talks about cost share grants. It says:

In implementing this section, the Secretaries may make

cost-share grants to Indian tribes, local fire districts,

municipalities, homeowner associations, and counties, to

remove, transport, and dispose of hazardous fuels around

homes and property to--

(1) prevent structural damage as a result of wildfire, or

(2) to restore or rehabilitate burned areas on non-Federal

lands.

This is still on non-Federal lands. It says the non-Federal contribution may be in the form of cash or in-kind contribution, and then it authorizes the appropriation of $100 million in each of those years, 2004 through 2008, to do their work, to make these grants, to help these non-Federal agencies and entities deal with the problems.

Much of the fire we have seen on television in recent days is, in fact, not on Federal land. They are desperately in need of assistance from the Federal Government. This is assistance that would be of that type and should be in place every year.

I will go through a more complete description of the amendment. The amendment does add two new sections to the bill to provide meaningful new authority and actual resources to protect communities at risk from unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire. If we are not going to add real resources as part of this bill, we are, in fact, making a false promise to the American people. We can give all the speeches about how we are going to pass the bill, the President is going to sign it, everything is going to be rosy, the clouds are going to clear, and we are going to be in the sunny uplands--the broad sunny uplands, is the way Churchill said it.

The reality is, if we do not provide resources to help, it is a false promise. This amendment will try to help provide those resources.

The first part of the amendment allows the Forest Service to borrow funds from the Treasury to pay for firefighting during the years in which available funds do not cover costs. Someone might say that is a pretty rare occasion, a year when the funds available do not cover the cost. Let me cite the last 3 years: 2001, 2002, and 2003, Forest Service firefighting funding.

We have three columns on my chart: The President's request, what was actually appropriated, and what was actually spent, what we wound up spending out of Federal Government funds to deal with this problem.

In 2001, the President requested the Congress appropriate the budget he sent us of $291 million. Fortunately, through the good offices of Senator Cochran and other Members, we did better than that. I very much appreciate that. Senator Byrd deserves credit, as do other Members on the Democratic side. We appropriated $469 million--not quite twice what the President asked for, but it is getting close. The amount that was actually needed was $683 million. So we missed it by a little--we were more than $200 million short of what the Forest Service actually had to spend for firefighting in that year.

In 2002, the President asked for more. He said $291 million was not enough, how about $325 million. This is for the whole country. He said, $325 million ought to be plenty for the whole country. In fact, we appropriated a little less than he asked for, $321 million. What was actually needed was $1.28 billion. So we missed it by not quite $1 billion. That is $1 billion that was spent by the Forest Service of funds not appropriated to them for this firefighting activity.

In 2003, which we just finished, the President said we need $421 million. The Appropriations Committee said no; let's make it $418 million. We spent over $1 billion--$1.02 billion.

There is a shortfall each year. It is a question of whether the shortfall is $1 billion, a couple hundred million, but every year we have done this. At least since this President has been in town, we have seen a significant shortfall. What I am trying to do is begin to address that problem.

The real problem that needs to be addressed with respect to the Forest Service situation is the practice of borrowing. Every time we do this, every time we give them much less money that turns out to be needed for firefighting, they have no choice but to take money from other accounts in order to deal with that problem. They do that.

Let me point out for the year 2002, the year we had the total amount transferred out of other accounts to fight fires was $1.02 billion. What did that come from? It came from different accounts, but a big chunk of it came out of accounts that are the accounts we are saying in the Senate are our highest priority. We want money for forest restoration, we want money for thinning of forests, for getting the underbrush out of the way so we do not have the fires. In fact, that funding is not available to the Forest Service because they are too busy using it to fight fires rather than to get ahead of the problem and deal with that.

There are many examples I will cite of the problem we are dealing with. In my home State of New Mexico, we have a publication, a 1-page sheet the Forest Service issued called ``Effects of Transferring Money to Fire Suppression.'' That is what this chart is reflecting. All of the money on the chart was transferred to fire suppression, to firefighting. This was issued in April by the Forest Service with regard to New Mexico. It says the 2002 fire season was intense. The cost of suppressing these fires was nearly $1.3 billion. The Forest Service transferred $1 billion from other discretionary and mandatory accounts to defray fire suppression costs. Over $55 million was borrowed from national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. Some critical projects in New Mexico were postponed for up to 1 year as a result of fire borrowing. These included wildland/urban interface fuels projects, in the Carson National Forest, in the Gila National Forest, in the Lincoln National Forest, in the Santa Fe National Forest; a contract for construction of a fuel break around the community at risk in the Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6 months.

What they have to do when they shift the money out of these accounts, they have to put that forest thinning or forest restoration project on hold because they cannot afford it. They are too busy fighting fires. We need the money to fight fires. We have caused them to do that every year.

A similar problem exists in many other States. I will indicate a few of those, States that have a great interest in this legislation. I have a document called ``Summary of Effects of Transferring Money to Fire Suppression.'' As a result of recent fire transfers in which money has been transferred from various Forest Service accounts to pay for emergency wildfire suppression, critical Forest Service projects were postponed or canceled throughout the West. There are literally hundreds of examples of unfortunate consequences

that resulted, including canceled prescribed burns, thinning projects, timber sales, evasive weed control programs, and emergency burned area rehabilitation projects.

The consequences are felt beyond dangerous forest conditions, and they range from the postponement of dam safety inspection to the inability to finalize a tribal energy development agreement.

I have already given examples from my State of New Mexico. In Idaho, spring burning projects in the Nez Perce National Forest were postponed.

A brush-cutting project in Clearwater National Forest could not be completed.

In Montana, a hazardous fuels reduction project in the wildland/urban interface of the Bitter Root National Forest was postponed and slated for possible cancellation.

In Oregon, watershed assessments and restoration activities associated with the Biscuit Fire were delayed. Numerous timber sales and wildland/urban interface thinning work was postponed.

In Washington, white pine blister rust thinning and pruning projects were deferred.

In California, nearly $6 million was transferred out of forest health vegetation management and ecological restoration accounts in 2003, resulting in having to withdraw stewardship contracts for wildland/ urban interface fuels reduction projects and the failure to complete prescribed burns.

So this issue of borrowing is serious. It is one that we need to address as part of this bill.

I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, who are the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts to secure $400 million to repay the accounts from which the agencies have borrowed to fight fires.

Now, what happens each year, when we, in fact, give the Forest Service less money for firefighting than they need, we have to come back the next year in supplemental appropriations and ask for funds with which to pay back those accounts so they can hopefully get back to those projects they had to postpone.

My understanding is that this amount, this $400 million, was included in the conference report that was agreed upon Monday night. I also appreciate Senator Burns' comments that the $400 million is not the final word. I believe he said this is especially true since the Forest Service alone actually borrowed $695 million from other programs so far in this last year.

However, this year-to-year approach to the fire-borrowing problem is not an adequate solution. Even when our Senate appropriations colleagues do everything they can to make sure these accounts are repaid every year, on-the-ground restoration work is delayed--it is substantially delayed--while the Forest Service waits for Congress to pass a supplemental appropriations bill to once again give them the money they had originally been given but could not use for that purpose. They had to use it for firefighting.

The events that occurred earlier this year are a devastating example of that. I have sort of gone through that on this chart. The Senate approved $289 million in extra wildfire funding in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental spending bill. However, the House dropped it.

On July 28, Senator Burns correctly stated on the floor:

. . . without work in the House to help get these funds, we

will be facing an even more drastic situation.

Nonetheless, the bill that was sent to the President did not contain these urgently needed funds.

In my State of New Mexico, some critical Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction projects were postponed for up to a year, last year, as a result of borrowing to fight fires. These include projects in all these national forests I have mentioned.

In February 2003, the Missoulian, which I understand is a Montana newspaper--I assume in Missoula--reported that because of fire borrowing, Montana and northern Idaho forests ``lost about $80 million, including $25 million intended for the repair and replanting of forests burned two years earlier on the Bitterroot National Forest.''

Moreover, as evidenced last year by a $200 million shortfall, the supplemental appropriations often are not sufficient to provide full repayment to the programs that have been raided.

So what you have, as we spend what we have on fighting fires--and there is no choice about that--the Forest Service gives up funds that were intended for other purposes. In many cases, this restoration work, that we all are now saying is so important--and I certainly agree is so important--then we never get around to giving them the full money. We never get around to replacing all the funds that we have taken.

Mr. President, let me talk a little about the second part of my amendment. The second part of the amendment provides $100 million annually to reduce fire risk and restore burned areas on non-Federal lands.

The Forest Service's own researchers state that 77 percent of all high-risk areas are on non-Federal lands. In addition, the National Academy of Public Administration, in their 2002 report, found that 47 percent of acres burned each year are on non-Federal lands. They concluded that decreasing the fuel on all owners' lands is needed to address the large scope of the fire hazard problem.

So the second part of the amendment I am offering provides real assistance to States and to local partners to conduct projects that will complement the work we are trying to do in national forests and on public lands.

If we send a bill to the President which just deals with the issue on Federal lands, and then declare victory, the truth is, we will not have dealt with the biggest part of the problem. Mr. President, 77 percent of all high-risk areas are not on Federal lands; they are on land owned by someone else. This second part of my amendment tries to provide some level of Federal support to those other entities to do the clearing they need to do.

Many communities that are adjacent to national forests are doing their part to better protect themselves from the risk of these catastrophic wildfires.

For example, last year--this, again, is an example from my home State--the village council in Ruidoso, NM, adopted new laws that set fire-resistant construction and landscaping standards and established forest health and fire danger reduction requirements. However, even with these new requirements, just a few months ago homeowners in Ruidoso received notices from insurance companies warning them to thin the trees on their lots or risk losing their coverage altogether.

Clearly, we need to assist these communities and these homeowners to quickly accomplish that needed work. We need to attack the problem in a comprehensive way. If we reduce fuels on public lands, Federal lands, without also treating the adjacent non-Federal lands, we will not adequately protect our communities.

I think anyone who has watched television for the last several days has to believe that is the case. Obviously, many of these subdivisions are not on Federal land. They are, in some cases, adjacent to Federal land, but much of the thinning that has to occur, in order to protect communities, is not thinning on Federal lands.

A lack of adequate funding for forest health projects continues to constrain our efforts to actively manage the forests to reduce the threat of fire and insects and disease.

Three years ago, Congress found that funding was the main obstacle to improving forest health and reducing the threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic fire.

Specifically, we created the National Fire Plan. The National Fire Plan talked about $1.6 billion in new funding for programs to improve forest health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to sustain a commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough period to make a difference. We were talking about perhaps 15 years.

That meant, at a minimum, sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding levels for all components of the fire plan. Unfortunately, we have not followed through. The administration has systematically and continually proposed major cuts from that level. In some cases, they have proposed zeroing out critical programs within the National Fire Plan, including this burned area, restoration, and rehabilitation, the economic action programs, the community and private fire assistance.

The administration proposed these extreme cuts and the elimination of

funding, notwithstanding the clearly identified demand for these programs. We hear that demand from communities in all of our States where forest fires have burned in excess in recent years.

This provision, this amendment that I am offering, will also provide actual dollars to restore the burned areas on non-Federal lands. After a fire is extinguished, communities often face equally hazardous threats from landslides and flooding. There has been very little attention to that as yet because the fires continue to burn in California. But once those fires are out, we will start hearing about flooding and landslides. There needs to be assistance to deal with that as well.

In creating the national parklands 3 years ago, Congress provided $142 million for burned area restoration and rehabilitation. Nonetheless, in its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the administration requested $3 million--not $142 million--for burned area restoration and rehabilitation. In fiscal year 2004, they requested no funds for this account.

The amendment I am offering will provide funds for urgent community needs for activities such as soil stabilization after fires occur. The question we are faced with today is: Are we going to legislate solutions that will really make a difference on the ground?

I very much appreciate the provision in the Cochran amendment that authorizes $760 million, but as we all know, authorizing a certain level of funding in the Congress is not an adequate solution. In fact, agency officials tell me under current law there is no ceiling on the amount of money that could be appropriated to address this problem. Providing actual dollars, as my amendment does, clearly is part of the solution.

I urge my colleagues to support both sections of this amendment. This is an important issue. I believe that if we pass this legislation without dealing with both of these issues--the borrowing problem and the problem of not providing funds for work on non-Federal lands--we will be falling far short of where we should be.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me briefly respond. I know the point of order has been made. A motion has been made to waive the Budget Act.

First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I appreciate the good intent of my friend from Idaho in saying that this is something on which we ought to start working or on which we ought to work. The reality is, this is our best chance. This legislation is likely to go to the President, likely to be signed into law in some form. If we don't take the opportunity this legislation presents to fix this problem, it

will remain unfixed. We can have all of the assurances we want from the administration, but the reality is, the administration is under very severe budgetary restraints as it goes into this next year. We in Congress are under very severe budgetary restraints. Everyone around this place is going to be looking for ways to save money. That means that when it comes to actually providing the resources to fight fires, the course of least resistance is to do what we have always been doing, what President Bush has done in the last several years: Ask for way too little money for firefighting. And then, when it turns out that you need an extra billion dollars, tell the Forest Service to take it out of their other accounts.

That is exactly what we have done in the last several years. We are getting ready to do that again. I, for one, am not persuaded that the concern the Senator from Idaho has expressed here is shared by all in the administration. I am confident he believes the issue is one that should be addressed. But each of us, as we know, has different priorities for what needs to be addressed. I would say this is a fairly low priority for the people putting the administration's budget proposal together, which we are going to receive this next January.

I very much think this issue needs to be addressed as part of this bill. Again, as I said a couple of times in my earlier statement, if we pass this bill without addressing the resource problem and the borrowing problem I am trying to get at in my amendment, we can give all the speeches we want, issue all the press releases, have all the press conferences we want saying what a great thing we have done for the American people, but 77 percent of the areas at highest risk are not going to have any Federal resources available to them.

In addition to that, the thinning activity, much of the forest restoration activity we all say we favor, is not going to be funded. So we need to deal with this as part of this bill.

Frankly, I am sorry to see the decision has been made to try to deal with this as a procedural vote. I think this is an important enough issue that we ought to have an up-or-down vote on it and let people express their point of view. When you raise a Budget Act point of order, basically what you are saying is this is not a big enough priority to justify changing the way the budget now sits. If that is the conclusion of most Members of the Senate, then I think shame on us. If we have the fires going in California, we have all the other problems we all talk about, and we are not willing to put that to the front of the priority list, then I think shame on us.

I very much prefer to see us have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. Obviously, that is not possible now with the Budget Act point of order and the motion to waive the Budget Act.

I will yield the floor, but I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with the issue of the treatment of long-term fuel management and treating what is called slash. Many fuel reduction projects require two or more sequential treatments over several years on the same parcel of land--for example, an initial timber harvest, followed by the piling and burning of slash, which is, obviously, the brush and trees that have been cut down.

Completing these followup slash treatments in a timely manner is a very important part of forest restoration work. It is important because the slash provides fuel for wildfires, and it provides habitat for beetles and other insects.

I think we have some studies that demonstrate the insect disease problem expands where this slash is not properly treated. Everyone agrees it is important to conduct these followup treatments in locations where fuel reduction projects have been completed in order to prevent the area from returning to the condition that puts these locations at high risk of unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire.

There is a recent GAO analysis in my State that found the Forest Service and the BLM completed about only 19 of 39 followup slash treatments in a timely manner.

In addition, the GAO found the agencies' reported figures for the acres treated were inflated because they had double-counted acres where the same acreage was treated in multiyear phases. Where you have this kind of a slash treatment necessary, we are getting inaccurate accounting by the Forest Service and by the BLM.

This is troubling because it means the Forest Service and the BLM are providing inaccurate data with respect to the number of acres on which this fire threat is actually being addressed. My amendment tries to ensure there is accurate accounting. In my view, it is a simple and straightforward amendment. I do not see why it should be controversial. It is a minor matter in the eyes of some, but the Forest Service's failure to properly manage this slash treatment has worsened the fire risk in some areas. Obviously, the focus of this legislation is to reduce that fire risk.

I think it is an appropriate amendment. I hope this is something the managers of the bill could accept. If not, obviously we can have a vote on it.

Let me just briefly describe the amendment in a little more detail and essentially read it. It says:

In implementing hazardous fuels reduction projects, the

Secretaries--

That is the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior--

shall ensure that--

a slash treatment plan is completed;

acres are not identified as treated, in annual program

accomplishment reports, until all phases of a multi-year

project such as thinning, slash reduction, and prescribed

burning are completed; and

a system to track the budgeting and implementation of

follow-up treatments shall be used to account for the long-

term maintenance of areas managed to reduce hazardous fuels.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just say that I think this amendment is anything but a prescription for gridlock. There is the suggestion that all sorts of new program accomplishment reports are going to be required. Those reports are currently produced. And the real issue is, do we get proper accounting in those reports or do we not? The GAO has told us we do not. Each year they give us an accomplishment report, and they list acreage on which they have not completed the forest restoration work. They have done one of the phases of that forest restoration work, and then the next year they take credit for that acreage again by doing another phase. The next year they take credit for that acreage again by doing another phase.

All we are saying is that acres should not be identified as having been treated in these annual reports, which are already provided, until they have done all of the different phases--the thinning, slash reduction, and the prescribed burning.

We are not requiring additional reports. We are requiring accurate reports. That is not an unreasonable request.

I am somewhat disappointed. This is an amendment we delivered to the managers of the bill yesterday, to their

staff. We asked them to review it, to give us suggestions. If they had problems with any aspect of it, they did not get back to us, except to say it is unacceptable. That seems to be the position they are taking with regard to any and all suggested amendments to the bill.

This is intended as a constructive amendment. I see it as a constructive amendment to deal with a specific problem that the GAO has identified as existing with regard to management of the long-term fuel supply.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment requires the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to establish a collaborative monitoring process in order to assess the environmental and social effects of a representative sampling of projects implemented under this act. There are many forest-dependent communities that support collaborative monitoring of forest projects on public land. This simply means it is collaborative monitoring. That phrase simply means that interested communities and individuals may participate with Federal agencies in monitoring the ecological and social effects of forest health projects.

Proponents of the legislation that we are considering today continually state that they want more collaboration at the beginning of the process. However, unless there is collaborative monitoring of the effects of the projects, we will never be able to rebuild trust between rural communities and these agencies.

Congress enacted a similar requirement when authorizing the Stewardship Contracting Program. In addition, Senator Craig and I sponsored the community-based Forest and Public Land Restoration Act. That bill, which was passed by the Senate unanimously, also required collaborative monitoring. This is a simple amendment. I believe it is noncontroversial. I hope this is acceptable to the managers of the bill and can be adopted.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment simply gives the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management the authority to consider benefit to local communities when determining which company or individual is going to receive a contract to conduct a hazardous fuels reduction effort on the national forests and the public lands.

Currently, the authority the agencies have limits them to accepting only the high bid for a timber sale contract or the low bid for a service contract. Unfortunately, numerous forest-dependent rural communities have discovered this practice means the contracts are often awarded to large companies from urban areas, and in many cases from States other than where those communities are located. In my State of New Mexico, many rural communities are trying desperately to find ways in which they can create and maintain decent jobs. Because these communities are often surrounded by national forests and public lands, I believe that, where possible, we should provide tools to create jobs in these communities by restoring the health of the forests.

Best-value contracting is one such tool. This amendment, as currently drafted--and this is a change from the earlier draft--says that ``to conduct a project under this act, the Secretaries''--that is the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior--``may use best- value contracting criteria in awarding contracts and agreements.'' It goes on to define what best-value contracting criteria include.

I think it is important to realize here that this best-value contracting criterion does include consideration of the benefits to local communities such as ensuring that the byproducts are processed locally.

Congress enacted a very similar requirement when authorizing the Stewardship Contracting Program.

In addition, last year Senator Craig and I sponsored the Community- Based Forest and Public Lands Restoration Act. That bill, which was passed by the Senate unanimously, also authorized best-value contracting.

I believe this is a simple amendment. It should be noncontroversial. I hope it can be accepted by all Senators.

Mr. President, in response, I would be glad to speak for no more than 5 minutes.

I call up amendment No. 2048.

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

Mr. President, let me start by congratulating Senator DeWine, Senator Durbin, and all the others who worked so hard on the earlier amendment we adopted to add some funding. The case was extremely persuasive. By adding those dollars, we will be saving tens or perhaps hundreds of thousand of lives. I agreed with that and was very strongly in support of the amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is to make an additional $200 million available for the global AIDS initiative and reduce the amount that is available for the Millennium Challenge Account by $200 million. So this is a transfer of funds from one part of the appropriations bill to another.

Let me talk first about the Millennium Challenge Account, with which we are all familiar, to help developing countries. The administration, in their budget request, asked for $800 million in new obligated funds for this Millennium Challenge Account. That was what the Secretary of State testified to in answer to a question from Senator Biden before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Biden asked:

What is the estimate of obligations of $800 million in

fiscal year 2004 based on?

Secretary Powell's answer:

This is an estimate of the proportion of the $1.3 billion

budget request which we expect would actually be obligated in

2004 based on the careful selection system we have set up.

Thus, we do not believe it likely that all MCA money

appropriated in 2004 would be obligated in the fiscal year.

Let me put up one other chart. This chart depicts graphically that the President's budget request was $1.3 billion in budget authority, but only $800 million in funds to be obligated in 2004.

The House, in their appropriations process, took the President at his word and said: OK, you want $800 million for the Millennium Challenge Account; we will give you $800 million.

We have gone an extra $200 million, although the administration itself says this extra $200 million they want for 2005 and later. They do not need it for 2004.

My amendment simply would use that money in 2004 for this AIDS problem about which we are all so concerned. The amendment is inside the budget. It is inside the appropriations caps that the subcommittee has been given.

In my view, this is a much better use of the money than just leaving $200 million in an account somewhere for the next 12 months until we get to 2005. This would be money that would be made available. I do not agree with the notion that we can just postpone and do more good with this money later on. Later on, many of the people we would like to help will be dead. The reality is we need to get this money and assistance to them as quickly as possible and follow through on the promise we have made. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. President, just to summarize the point, I am in favor of the Millennium Challenge Account. I am proposing that we go ahead and provide the full $800 million that the administration asks to be obligated in 2004. That is exactly what the House of Representatives did. That is exactly what we ought to do.

My only point is that we should not be giving them $200 million that they themselves--that is, the administration itself--say they cannot spend in 2004. They do not plan to spend it in 2004. That money should be made available to fight AIDS. We can do that. It does not bust the budget. It does not bust the limitations that we have on this spending bill. It is a better use of that money, and I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, first, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, in the bill before us, we have $200 million for the Millennium Challenge Account that the administration says they cannot spend in 2004. They do not plan to spend it. They did not request it.

The House gave the administration $800 million for the Millennium Challenge Account. We are giving them $1 billion.

My amendment would say let's give them the same amount the House is proposing to give them, the $800 million, and let's take that extra $200 million and use that in the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is a much better use of the funds than just putting it in an account for possible use in 2005.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, even if we were not having the catastrophic fires we are seeing every day in southern California right now, the forest health issue is of vital importance to us in the West, and many of the speeches that have been given here underscore that.

I am glad the Senate is considering a forest health bill with the opportunity for us to offer amendments. I will not go through all of my statement because I know we want to get to those amendments. There has been a lot of time used already in discussing the bill in general terms. We need to get down to some of the specific amendments.

Let me make a few general statements about the bill because I do think it is good to at least give our perspective on the situation.

Some have tried to portray the issue as one of support for the concept of active management of our national forests on the one hand as opposed to simply allowing nature to take its course. Let me be clear that I do not agree with that portrayal of the debate taking place in the Congress. I have always viewed active forest management as not only a desirable policy but one that is absolutely necessary. In my opinion, support for active and responsible forest management does not equate with support necessarily for all the provisions in this substitute amendment that will be coming before us.

I want to be sure that whatever legislative language we pass provides meaningful new authority to Federal land managers, that it is focused on the communities that are most threatened by wildfire, and that it does not unduly restrict the public's ability to participate in the oversight of public lands management.

In addition, I believe commercial timber operations are an important

part of our national forest policy. It is important that legislation dealing with forest health not be a pretext for accomplishing that purpose as well.

I wish to discuss some of the concerns with the forest health issue based on the initial reading I have done of the amendment we are going to be debating and amending.

Let me begin by stating the obvious. That is, the health of our Nation's forests is absolutely critical at this point due to generations of misguided forest management policies. Many forests are overcrowded with unhealthy buildup of underbrush and tree overcrowding. I think all the experts in this field recognize that. We see evidence of that not only with the California fires, but we see evidence of it throughout the country.

The effect of these large wildfires can be catastrophic, as we all can see. We have, as Senator Domenici indicated, seen some of this catastrophe in my home State of New Mexico. He made reference to the Cerro Grande fire at Los Alamos where a substantial number of homes were destroyed and a great amount of the forest was also destroyed.

Clearly, we need to take proactive steps to improve forest health. In my view, the proposed forest health amendment does some things right but, in some respects, I think it misses that opportunity. It does not provide any meaningful new authority for funding to help Federal land managers, but it does add new restrictions on the public's ability to participate and restrictions on the Federal courts' ability to review what is done.

There is a basic disagreement among some of us in Congress and among those who are most ardently supporting this amendment, and that is a disagreement about what is the most significant public policy issue we are faced with in trying to come to grips with these catastrophic fires.

The amendment we are going to be debating seems to be based on the premise that the underlying and essential problem that needs fixing is that we have too much public participation in the decisionmaking process, in management decisions, administrative appeals, and lawsuits.

One of the speakers earlier today talked about a litigation paralysis, saying that is the problem, that is why these forests are burning up. That is what we need to change most quickly. I say this because the major new authorities provided in the amendment are ones that limit appeals of agency decisions, limit judicial review, and require courts to follow new standards. I don't really think the facts support this assumption that litigation is the major and most significant problem we face.

I recently asked the General Accounting Office to study whether the National Environmental Policy Act compliance requirements, the agency appeals, and the litigation that has occurred were causing significant delays in hazardous fuel reduction projects.

The GAO issued a preliminary report in May. They just completed a final report last Friday. The GAO in that report reviewed 818 Forest Service management decisions over a 2-year period, fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and these 818 forest management decisions involving fuel reduction activities on 4.8 million acres of land. These were the first 2 years of the so-called national fire plan which we have all been trying to see implemented.

It is worthwhile to take just a minute to summarize what the GAO found. The GAO found that the vast majority of acres treated were categorically excluded by the Forest Service from NEPA review. That is a term of art, ``categorically excluded.'' That means this is authority in the law for the Forest Service to say: We are going to exclude certain areas from NEPA review, and we have the authority to do that.

The GAO found the vast majority of acres that were treated were, in fact, categorically excluded. None of these projects were appealed, none were litigated, none were subject to appeal, and none were subject to litigation.

Only 25 of the 818 were litigated. That represents about 3 percent of all projects. That involved about 100,000 acres. Again, this is out of the 4.8 million acres that was studied by the GAO for those 2 years.

Significantly, the GAO found of those 25 cases that were litigated, 23 involved commercial timber sales. Of the 25 cases that were litigated, the courts found the Forest Service lost on all but one of those cases. So to the extent litigation was involved, the vast majority of the time the Forest Service was found to have been in violation of the law.

In my opinion, litigation is not the major problem. I am not saying we cannot do some things to streamline the appeals process and to be sure any frivolous litigation is eliminated, but I do think we need to recognize the GAO made a study that shed some light on what we are doing.

The majority of forest-thinning projects were categorically excluded from NEPA. In my State, in region 3 of the Forest Service, which included Arizona and New Mexico, the GAO found 78 percent of the projects were excluded, and that covered 91 percent of the affected acreage. So 91 percent of the affected acreage was never subject to appeal, never subject to litigation.

This is a useful report. There is a one-page summary of it. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record after my remarks.

The only other report we have analyzing empirical data of the Forest Service appeals involved a 2003 study by a political science professor at Northern Arizona University. Contrary to the assertions of the Bush administration, the Northern Arizona University study found the number of appeals had been decreasing since 1998.

I will speak a little bit about what I do see as a major issue as part of this legislation. Based on our experience with forest health issues in my State, the real issue has not been judicial appeals, judicial review, but instead has been providing adequate funding for forest health projects and stopping the Forest Service's harmful practice of borrowing funds from fire prevention accounts in order to pay for the cost of fighting forest fires. I will offer an amendment on that in a few minutes. I wanted to flag that as an essential problem I think needs to be dealt with. It is not dealt with in the amendment coming to the floor now, but I will give the Senate the opportunity to deal with it. I hope the Senate will agree with me this is something we need to fix.

I commend Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts to secure $400 million last month to repay the accounts the agencies borrowed in order to fight fires. I also appreciate Senator Burns's comment that the $400 million is not the final word, especially since the estimates those agencies have given is they actually had to borrow over $600 million from other programs so far this year.

However, the year-to-year approach we have followed of borrowing funds from other accounts in order to deal with forest fires is just not adequate. Even when our Senate Appropriations colleagues were able to obtain supplemental funding to repay these other Forest Service accounts, every year on-the-ground restoration work is substantially delayed while the Forest Service waits for a supplemental appropriations bill to be enacted into law.

In New Mexico, there are some very critical Forest Service fire prevention projects that were postponed for up to a year as a result of borrowing from these accounts. These include wildland/urban interface fuels projects in the Carson National Forest, the Gila National Forest, the Lincoln National Forest, and the Santa Fe National Forest.

In addition, a contract for construction of a fuel break around a community at risk in the Cibola National Forest was postponed for 6 months because of the agency borrowing to cover firefighting costs.

This is not criticism of the agency. The agency has no alternative but to do this borrowing, the way we have set it up. What happens is very simple. The President asks for too little money for firefighting. He does that every year--at least he has for the last several years. I have some charts I will show in a few minutes on that.

The President asks for too little money. We in the Congress agree with

the President and appropriate too little money. Then when the fires start happening, of course, the Forest Service has to find ways to fight those fires. The only option they have is to shut down their activities in other areas and use that money instead to fight fires.

One of the other areas they shut down activity in is in this forest- thinning work, so that we put it off, say, OK, we cannot get it done this year; we are too busy fighting fires; we will try to get it done next year. Then next year comes and once again they may have to use the money they had hoped to use for the forest-thinning activities and the forest health activities to, in fact, fight fires. That has happened year in and year out. It is a classic case of being so busy killing alligators that there is not time to drain the swamp. That is exactly the position we have put the Forest Service in and we need to try to correct that. I will offer an amendment with the hope the Senate will agree with me and make that correction.

The lack of funding for forest health projects continues to constrain our efforts to actively manage our forests to deal with these disease and drought conditions which have been discussed at length. Three years ago, Congress found funding was the main obstacle to improving forest health and reducing a threat of unnaturally intense catastrophic wildfire. Specifically, we have created the National Fire Plan, with $1.6 billion in new funding for existing programs, to improve forest health conditions. At that time, we all agreed on the need to sustain a commitment to the National Fire Plan over a long enough period so we could make a difference. We were talking about 15 years. That meant at a minimum sustaining the fiscal year 2001 funding levels for all components of the National Fire Plan.

Unfortunately, as I stated just a few minutes ago, the administration has systematically and continually proposed major cuts and, in some cases, zeroing out critical programs within that National Fire Plan, including the burned area restoration program, rehabilitation projects, economic action programs, community and private land fire assistance. So the proposed cuts we have received in the budgets each year have eliminated funding for these programs, notwithstanding the clearly identified demand for these programs. For example, New Mexico and other States have suffered unnaturally intense, catastrophic fires, and there is a desperate need for funds to restore and rehabilitate the burned areas.

Finally, the 2002 report and conclusion by the National Academy of Public Administration confirmed the main obstacle constraining the Forest Service from substantially increasing its proactive efforts to reduce fire risk is the lack of adequate funding. The proposed amendment to H.R. 1904 authorizes $760 million. I appreciate the fact that funding level is in there, but it does not ensure the real funding will be provided. The problem is, when we get into the actual appropriating of funds, we do not get the job done.

In earlier debates, I have repeatedly stated the Forest Service needs to focus its hazardous fuels reduction effort more directly on the threats communities face. We will have an amendment to that effect. I know Senator Boxer from California has an amendment to try to do a better job in that regard. I think that will be an important issue for us to try to deal with as well.

In sum, Congress required a sufficient proportion of all hazardous fuels reduction funds be spent on projects near communities. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office recently found that more than two-thirds of the Forest Service decisions involving fuel reduction activities were targeted exclusively at lands outside this wildland/urban interface area. The amendment that has been brought to the floor here goes on to state that this requirement is based on a national average, this 50 percent requirement. They are saying we should have 50 percent going for projects near communities, in this wildland/urban interface. If you have a requirement such as that based on national average, obviously individual forests or even entire regions can significantly ignore this direction we were giving them.

In addition, the provisions of the amendment only apply to funds allocated for projects pursuant to title I of H.R. 1904 rather than to the entire hazardous fuels reduction program.

There are many questions about the specific language of the amendment at which we need to look. Let me talk for just a minute about the new administrative appeals process.

Apart from what the amendment does not do, I am very concerned with some of the things the new authority does try to do. The provision that seems the least developed in the amendment, the one that causes me significant concern, is section 105. This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a predecisional administrative review process that will serve as the:

sole means by which a person can seek administrative review

of a hazardous fuel reduction project. . . .

This predecisional process is described as covering the period following the completion of the appropriate NEPA document up to the date a final agency decision is issued.

I understand the desire to ensure that interested members of the public are involved during the development of the proposed agency project, and to avoid lawsuits by those who have not been involved in the process, and I certainly agree with that.

However, I think the language is somewhat troubling. As I understand it, the language would limit the right to administratively appeal an agency decision, as well as the ability to challenge it in Federal court, to those who have exhausted the predecisional review process. So we are going to significantly limit the right to appeal or challenge a decision based on a process that has not been established yet and that we are not really clear on what it will permit.

There are other questions about that. As I understand it, there will likely be an amendment offered on that issue as well.

Let me say a word about the Federal courts because many of the others who have spoken have done that. The amendment that has been offered here limits the court's ability to issue a preliminary injunction to no more than 60 days, although a court can renew an injunction indefinitely.

In order to issue a preliminary injunction, a court needs to find several things: No. 1, that the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits. That is the first thing the court needs to find. No. 2, that there will be irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. No. 3, the harm to the plaintiff in not issuing the injunction is not outweighed by the harm to the defendant of issuing the injunction. And, No. 4, that issuing the injunction is in the public interest.

So a Federal court has to find quite a few things to issue a preliminary injunction. Having made this determination, I wonder why we then are saying to the court, unless you come back and renew that injunction every 60 days, we in Congress are going to assume the agency was right and you were wrong. The court has already determined that most likely the agency is in error. So I have concerns about that.

I understand there is a great desire here to limit the Federal court's ability to issue injunctions, preliminary injunctions. My understanding is, also, that this not only limits preliminary injunctions, it limits the Federal court's rights to issue permanent injunctions in some questionable ways.

Let me say just briefly, I do think we need to be sure the bill has adequate protections for national monuments and for roadless areas. There are provisions to exclude designated wilderness and wilderness study areas from the bill. I think we should have that same provision apply to national monuments. I hope we can persuade our colleagues that that makes good sense. I have been told by some that is certainly their intent.

Turning to my home State, 3 years ago we created the Valles Caldera National Preserve in northern New Mexico. I think it would be good to know how the provisions in this amendment would be used there, in that type of arrangement. Perhaps we can clarify that. I hope we can.

There are several other questions about how this relates to other forest initiatives: How does it interact with recent legislative and administrative actions regarding forest health?

There is a stewardship contracting program that includes exemptions from

the National Forest Management Act and provides new authority for the Forest Service and for the BLM to trade the value of big trees removed by a contractor for restoration services completed by that same contractor. We need to see how this new legislation would impact upon that.

In addition, the administration has taken several regulatory actions recently under its Healthy Forests initiative. It has promulgated new rules establishing a categorical exclusion from NEPA, which would apply to projects, including timber sales, that cover up to 1,000 acres each. The administration has published new rules overhauling the Forest Service appeals process. Those new rules exempt all ``categorically excluded projects from appeal.''

In other words, the administration has taken significant action to deal with several of these issues. We need to know how this legislation affects the actions that have already been taken.

Slash treatments is another issue that I think deserves some attention. We have a serious issue here in that in my home State they go through, they cut down the diseased small trees, they put them into piles, and then they have to come back and do a sequential treatment, come back and remove that slash and be sure it does not become bug infested and become an even greater problem. The GAO analysis found that in my State the Forest Service and BLM completed only 19 of the 34 followup slash treatments that they had committed to do in a timely manner. Again, it is probably a lack of funding that has caused that shortfall.

I have some additional concerns and questions about the provisions in the amendment. I will raise those at the appropriate time as we get into the amendments.

In closing, let me reiterate I am very glad we are proceeding to consideration of the bill. Since some of us were not involved in the negotiations, I do think it is appropriate we offer some amendments. Especially it is important for Senators from States that are directly affected by this threat to have that opportunity. I commend the people who did work hard in getting this legislation to this point. I do think there has been a genuine effort to find some compromise and to make some improvements. Clearly, this bill as it stands is substantially better than what the House has sent us. But it can be substantially improved from where it is. I hope the amendment we offer can be seriously considered, and hopefully adopted, and we make those improvements.

With that, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

United States General Accounting Office--Report to Congressional

Requesters

forest service--information on appeals and litigation involving fuels

reduction activities

Why GAO did this study

The federal fire community's decades old policy of

suppressing wildland fires as soon as possible has caused a

dangerous increase in vegetation density in our nation's

forests. This density increase combined with severe drought

over much of the United States has created a significant

threat of catastrophic wildfires. In response to this threat,

the Forest Service performs activities to reduce the buildup

of brush, small trees, and other vegetation on national

forest land. With the increased threat of catastrophic

wildland fires, there have been concerns about delays in

implementing activities to reduce these ``forest fuels.''

Essentially, these concerns focus on the extent to which

public appeals and litigation of Forest Service decisions to

implement forest fuels reduction activities unnecessarily

delay efforts to reduce fuels.

The Forest Service does not keep a national database on the

number of forest fuels reduction activities that are appealed

or litigated. Accordingly, GAO was asked to develop this

information for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Among other

things, GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of

decisions involving fuels reduction activities and the number

of acres affected, (2) the number of decisions that were

appealed and/or litigated and the number of acres affected,

(3) the outcomes of appealed and/or litigated decisions, and

(4) the number of appeals that were processed within

prescribed time frames.

What GAO found

In a GAO survey of all national forests, forest managers

reported the following:

In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 818 decisions involved fuels

reduction activities covering 4.8 million acres.

Of the 818 decisions involving fuels reduction activities,

about 24 percent were appealed--affecting 954,000 acres.

However, of the 818 decisions, more than half, 486 decisions,

could not be appealed because they involved activities with

little or no environmental impact. Of the 332 appealable

decisions, 194 (about 58 percent) were appealed. There can

multiple appeals per decision. In addition, 25 decisions (3

percent) affecting about 111,000 acres were litigated.

For 73 percent of the appealed decisions, the Forest

Service allowed the fuels reduction activities to be

implemented without changes; 8 percent required some changes

before being implemented; and about 19 percent could not be

implemented. Of the 25 litigated decisions, 19 have been

resolved.

About 79 percent of appeals were processed within the

prescribed 90-day time frame. Of the remaining 21 percent,

the processing times ranged from 91 days to 240 days.

The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this

report, generally agreed with the report's contents. Their

specific comments and our evaluation of them are provided in

the report.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003, or QUAD, introduced by Senator Kennedy and cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Murray, Reed, Clinton, and myself.

Since 1998, when Congress last reauthorized the Higher Education Act, enrollment in institutions of higher education has risen to an all-time high, growing by nearly one million students. Half of these new enrollments are minority students, nearly 200,000 of which are of Hispanic origin. Projections show that enrollment in higher education will only continue to grow in the coming years. The increased demand for a college degree is due much in part to the changing economy. Those with a bachelor's degree now make 75 percent more than those without, and jobs requiring some post-secondary education are expected to account for over 40 percent of total job growth this decade.

While the demand for a college degree has increased, so too has the cost of college, and rather drastically. These increases severely limit access for many qualified students. For the 2002-2003 school year, four-year public universities reported an average tuition increase of over 14 percent. This comes on top of an almost ten percent increase in average tuition last year. Just three years ago the average increase was just four percent. For families in the lowest income quartile, average public university costs now consume 62 percent of their income. In the

early 1970's it was only 42 percent. What's more, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has declined. Today, Pell Grants cover only 40 percent of average fixed costs at four-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, they covered 80 percent of costs.

Every American should have the opportunity to realize his or her full potential, regardless of the depth of their pocketbook or the size of their parents' wallet. It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: we must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college.

Currently, 40 percent of all whites ages 18-24 are pursuing post- secondary education, compared with only 30 percent of African-Americans and 16 percent of Hispanics of the same age. Those disadvantaged students who do start college often do not finish: low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years; four in ten Hispanic students enrolled in four- year institutions drop out within three years of initial enrollment.

The College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act will help low-income and minority students get into college. QUAD increases funding to critical programs including GEAR Up, TRIO and LEAP. It improves access for low-income students through the creation of a new grant program for proven-effective test prep programs to provide free tutoring for college entrance exams to low-income students. It improves access and awareness for low-income students by creating a partnership among the federal government, the states, colleges, philanthropies, and corporations to provide low-income students with early information and an early assurance of financial access to college.

But Mr. President, we cannot simply help a student get into and pay for college, we must help them stay in college and earn their degree. Of the 16 percent of 18-24 year old Hispanics enrolling in college, a mere 40 percent actually complete their degree. Similarly, only 38 percent of African-American students that enroll in college complete their degree. QUAD will help low-income and minority students complete their education through the creation of two new retention programs. The first program provides grants to colleges and universities, which serve high-proportions of low-income students to implement innovative programs to provide students with the support they need to persist and graduate. The second program requires schools with large discrepancies in disaggregated graduation rates to increase their investment in support services to improve retention. QUAD also increases funding for minority serving institutions, and creates new grant programs to encourage minority students to pursue graduate education at minority serving institutions.

Minorities make up an increasing proportion of the United States population, but they continue to severely lag behind white students in completing both undergraduate and particularly graduate degrees. Minority Serving Institutions are serving an increasing proportion of minorities, and can help decrease this disparity. Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in 1999-2000, 25 percent attained them at Hispanic Serving Institutions and in the past ten years, the number of Hispanic students receiving master's degrees at HSIs grew by 136 percent, the number receiving doctoral degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first time professional degrees grew by 47 percent.

This past May, I proposed the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act, S. 1190. Under this act, the burdensome regulatory barriers for the 18 Hispanic Serving Institutions in New Mexico and more than 190 HSIs nationally would be removed and opportunities for students at HSIs would be greatly expanded. QUAD takes up this effort, increasing funding for current grants to HSIs and creating a new grant program for graduate programs at HSIs. The grant program would authorize a total of $300 million in fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be necessary in future years. Grants under this program would help schools improve instructional facilities, purchase instruction and telecommunications materials, give support to needy post baccalaureate students, improve distance learning and other telecommunications capabilities, collaborate with other institutions of higher education to expand programs, and support faculty and curriculum development.

QUAD will also help to attract and retain high quality teachers at tribal universities. This past February, Senator Daschle and I introduced legislation that would create a loan forgiveness program for individuals who choose to teach at tribal colleges and universities. QUAD includes this legislation, S. 378.

Another component of QUAD that I am proud to have worked on is the teacher quality provisions of Title II. Since my involvement in the accountability sections of Title II during the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we have worked to increase the bar for teacher quality. QUAD will greatly improve the training and recruitment of teachers by expanding and strengthening teacher-training programs to help teacher preparation institutions feed more qualified teachers into the classrooms. These improvements will help States and school districts meet the goal outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act of ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

QUAD will help colleges and school districts recruit and train more teachers with higher quality programs, and provide better training for in-service principals and superintendents. QUAD strengths provisions of HEA to focus on improving the quality of programs and services to teachers by ensuring that teacher preparation courses provide teachers with the specific skills and supports they need to succeed in the classroom, such as training necessary to help all students achieve high standards, including children with disabilities and limited English proficient students, and the integration of state standards and accountability in the classroom. QUAD supports innovation by establishing new financial incentive programs to professionalize the field of teaching, and attract and retain more individuals in the classroom. QUAD will also help to attract teachers to where they are needed most by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness for teachers working in high-need, high-demand areas. And QUAD helps to better prepare teachers to use technology in the classroom by increasing funding for the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program.

It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: We must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college. I know that my colleagues will take this proposal under serious consideration and I look forward to working with them on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this coming year.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003, or QUAD, introduced by Senator Kennedy and cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Murray, Reed, Clinton, and myself.

Since 1998, when Congress last reauthorized the Higher Education Act, enrollment in institutions of higher education has risen to an all-time high, growing by nearly one million students. Half of these new enrollments are minority students, nearly 200,000 of which are of Hispanic origin. Projections show that enrollment in higher education will only continue to grow in the coming years. The increased demand for a college degree is due much in part to the changing economy. Those with a bachelor's degree now make 75 percent more than those without, and jobs requiring some post-secondary education are expected to account for over 40 percent of total job growth this decade.

While the demand for a college degree has increased, so too has the cost of college, and rather drastically. These increases severely limit access for many qualified students. For the 2002-2003 school year, four-year public universities reported an average tuition increase of over 14 percent. This comes on top of an almost ten percent increase in average tuition last year. Just three years ago the average increase was just four percent. For families in the lowest income quartile, average public university costs now consume 62 percent of their income. In the

early 1970's it was only 42 percent. What's more, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has declined. Today, Pell Grants cover only 40 percent of average fixed costs at four-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, they covered 80 percent of costs.

Every American should have the opportunity to realize his or her full potential, regardless of the depth of their pocketbook or the size of their parents' wallet. It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: we must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college.

Currently, 40 percent of all whites ages 18-24 are pursuing post- secondary education, compared with only 30 percent of African-Americans and 16 percent of Hispanics of the same age. Those disadvantaged students who do start college often do not finish: low-income students are half as likely as upper income students to complete a bachelor's degree in four years; four in ten Hispanic students enrolled in four- year institutions drop out within three years of initial enrollment.

The College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act will help low-income and minority students get into college. QUAD increases funding to critical programs including GEAR Up, TRIO and LEAP. It improves access for low-income students through the creation of a new grant program for proven-effective test prep programs to provide free tutoring for college entrance exams to low-income students. It improves access and awareness for low-income students by creating a partnership among the federal government, the states, colleges, philanthropies, and corporations to provide low-income students with early information and an early assurance of financial access to college.

But Mr. President, we cannot simply help a student get into and pay for college, we must help them stay in college and earn their degree. Of the 16 percent of 18-24 year old Hispanics enrolling in college, a mere 40 percent actually complete their degree. Similarly, only 38 percent of African-American students that enroll in college complete their degree. QUAD will help low-income and minority students complete their education through the creation of two new retention programs. The first program provides grants to colleges and universities, which serve high-proportions of low-income students to implement innovative programs to provide students with the support they need to persist and graduate. The second program requires schools with large discrepancies in disaggregated graduation rates to increase their investment in support services to improve retention. QUAD also increases funding for minority serving institutions, and creates new grant programs to encourage minority students to pursue graduate education at minority serving institutions.

Minorities make up an increasing proportion of the United States population, but they continue to severely lag behind white students in completing both undergraduate and particularly graduate degrees. Minority Serving Institutions are serving an increasing proportion of minorities, and can help decrease this disparity. Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in 1999-2000, 25 percent attained them at Hispanic Serving Institutions and in the past ten years, the number of Hispanic students receiving master's degrees at HSIs grew by 136 percent, the number receiving doctoral degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first time professional degrees grew by 47 percent.

This past May, I proposed the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act, S. 1190. Under this act, the burdensome regulatory barriers for the 18 Hispanic Serving Institutions in New Mexico and more than 190 HSIs nationally would be removed and opportunities for students at HSIs would be greatly expanded. QUAD takes up this effort, increasing funding for current grants to HSIs and creating a new grant program for graduate programs at HSIs. The grant program would authorize a total of $300 million in fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be necessary in future years. Grants under this program would help schools improve instructional facilities, purchase instruction and telecommunications materials, give support to needy post baccalaureate students, improve distance learning and other telecommunications capabilities, collaborate with other institutions of higher education to expand programs, and support faculty and curriculum development.

QUAD will also help to attract and retain high quality teachers at tribal universities. This past February, Senator Daschle and I introduced legislation that would create a loan forgiveness program for individuals who choose to teach at tribal colleges and universities. QUAD includes this legislation, S. 378.

Another component of QUAD that I am proud to have worked on is the teacher quality provisions of Title II. Since my involvement in the accountability sections of Title II during the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we have worked to increase the bar for teacher quality. QUAD will greatly improve the training and recruitment of teachers by expanding and strengthening teacher-training programs to help teacher preparation institutions feed more qualified teachers into the classrooms. These improvements will help States and school districts meet the goal outlined in the No Child Left Behind Act of ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

QUAD will help colleges and school districts recruit and train more teachers with higher quality programs, and provide better training for in-service principals and superintendents. QUAD strengths provisions of HEA to focus on improving the quality of programs and services to teachers by ensuring that teacher preparation courses provide teachers with the specific skills and supports they need to succeed in the classroom, such as training necessary to help all students achieve high standards, including children with disabilities and limited English proficient students, and the integration of state standards and accountability in the classroom. QUAD supports innovation by establishing new financial incentive programs to professionalize the field of teaching, and attract and retain more individuals in the classroom. QUAD will also help to attract teachers to where they are needed most by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness for teachers working in high-need, high-demand areas. And QUAD helps to better prepare teachers to use technology in the classroom by increasing funding for the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology program.

It is time for Congress to step up and meet the challenge: We must do more to help qualified students attend and finish college. I know that my colleagues will take this proposal under serious consideration and I look forward to working with them on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this coming year.

Madam President, in response to the comments the Senator from Idaho made earlier this morning on the Healthy Forests legislation, the history of that legislation is that the bill did get referred to the Agriculture Committee. I thought that was a mistake, since the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has always had primary jurisdiction over most of the issues dealt with in that bill. But a bill was reported out of that committee.

Following that, a group of Senators--the Senator from Idaho included--got together on a bipartisan basis to develop their own alternative, or their own proposal. That is what is intended to be brought to the Senate floor. My staff, the staff of the Democratic side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was not included in those negotiations. I complained about that. They were told they could observe but not participate in a meaningful way. They did that to some extent.

I believe it is important that we have a full opportunity for amendment to this bill. I do not object to the bill coming up. I do not object to us proceeding with an agreement to limit what we do to the amendments related to that bill. I think that would be an appropriate way to proceed. It is an important issue. We ought to deal with it before Congress adjourns this fall.

I will have several amendments. I think there are problems with the bill as I understand it. I also have a great many questions I would like to have answers to about the meaning of some of the language in the bill. Those are legitimate issues. I believe we can have a full and fair debate and a full and fair opportunity for Senators to offer amendments.

I know the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, did suggest we proceed to bring the bill up. There would be no objection to that. Certainly, I think that would be an appropriate way to proceed. With that, I appreciate the chance to explain my own point of view and position.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment introduced by Senators Dorgan and Craig that will suspend enforcement of the travel ban on Cuba.

As many of my colleagues know, in March of this year the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Department of Treasury published new regulations that would severely restrict licensed travel by United States citizens to Cuba for educational activities. I think I would not be incorrect to call this regulatory change another backward step in a Cuba policy that has proven to be wrongheaded and counterproductive. We have in place at this time a trade, investment, and travel ban with Cuba that has been in place since the early 1960s that has had no tangible effect on the policies that have been implemented in that country. We now have proposed by the Department of Treasury a further tightening of these restrictions with no logical policy justification of which I am aware. We are talking about continuing the exact same policy with Cuba that has been in place for over 40 years and then wondering why we have the exact same results--year after year after year. I am afraid it makes no sense to me.

As a response, Senators Baucus and Enzi introduced legislation--of which I was an original cosponsor, S. 950--that was specifically designed to reverse this travel ban. The Dorgan-Craig

amendment is a shortened version of this legislation. Having recently passed in the House, I believe it reflects a visible trend on both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House toward a very simply proposition: the ongoing embargo with Cuba represents a significant foreign policy failure on the part of the U.S. Government in that it has only solidified the position of Castro and perpetuated the power of his brutal regime. What we have seen is a vicious circle where our unwillingness to engage Cuba has led to an inability on our part to influence the direction and speed of that country's political and economic development. Given the prominent issues in the country and the potential trajectories a post-Castro Cuba might take, this is not an exercise in theory. There are very real costs for the United States, in both the region and the world, if we do not work constructively and purposively toward a transition to a peaceful, democratic society and a free market economy in Cuba.

No one in Congress approves of the policies or the politics used by Castro. I personally deplore the regime's repressive tactics and support the movement in the country that has attempted to increase political participation. As it stands now, the lack of freedom and opportunity in Cuba stands in direct contrast to the rest of Latin America, and is a very real reflection of the inability of Castro to be in touch with the needs and desires of his people. Cuba now stands practically alone in Latin America in its ability to nurture the growth of democracy, establish the protection of individual human rights, and create a semblance of economic security.

But this is a question of how best to achieve the goals we all want. I am of the view that more, not less engagement will get us where we want to go. I am of the view that our strongest lever and possibility for change comes from intensive and ongoing interaction with the Cuban people. This amendment is a small but important step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Yes. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, let me take 2 minutes.

Amendment No. 1939

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I filed, No. 1939, which I understand is going to be acceptable to both the managers of the bill and will be included with other amendments that are approved in a few minutes.

I particularly compliment Senator Snowe as the cosponsor of this legislation. She has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her leadership on the amendment.

The amendment is very simple. In fact, both the House and the Senate have passed the substance of this amendment previously in connection with the FAA reauthorization legislation.

The amendment that we are offering, that we appreciate people supporting, will preserve the Essential Air Service Program by preventing the Department of Transportation from implementing a new program that would require communities to pay in order to retain their commercial air service. I hope the Senate will again support it.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in 34 States. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the current financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's largest city and business center.

Back in June, during consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, Senator Inhofe and I, with 13 bipartisan cosponsors, offered an amendment that struck out a provision in that bill that would for the first time require some communities to pay to retain their commercial air service. I believed that arbitrary proposal would have eliminated scheduled air service for many rural communities that participate in the Essential Air Service Program.

I was pleased the full Senate listened and adopted our amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. In parallel, the full House of Representatives also voted to eliminate mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill.

Most students of Government would tell you that when a majority of both Houses of Congress have voted against a particular measure, the conferees couldn't arbitrarily put it back in. Well they did. In another example of secret House-Senate back-room dealing, the Republican conferees excluded the minority members, flagrantly ignored the will of the majority in the House and the Senate, and restored the very cost-sharing language both Houses one month before had voted to reject.

I believe adding this extraneous and objectionable provision is an egregious violation of the conference process. A conference report on H.R. 2115 was filed 3 months ago and there has been no further action in either House of Congress. Clearly, this was flawed process and the result is an FAA conference report that can't pass either the House or the Senate.

It is not clear how the leaders will resolve the problems with the FAA conference report. Last month, 16 bipartisan Senators wrote to the House and Senate conferees opposing the mandatory cost sharing for EAS communities. Thirty-five bipartisan House Members signed a similar letter to conferees. I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would also like to point out that the President has not issued a veto threat on this issue.

All Senators know that a conference report is not amendable. I would have preferred not to pursue an amendment on an appropriations bill, but the conferees ignored the majority in the House and Senate once before. Put simply, this amendment is our only opportunity to undo what the conferees have done.

Mr. President, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could well see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our amendment will help ensure affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. I hope all Senators will join us in opposing this attack on rural America.

Again, I appreciate the support of all Senators and the support of the two managers.

I yield the floor.