Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation entitled the ``Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act of 2003.'' The purpose of this legislation is to close a gap in medical coverage that leaves a certain group of military officers without health care benefits. Named in honor of a young New Mexican who fell victim to this gap, this bill would extend coverage to commissioned officers who are awaiting active duty status.

Jesse Spiri grew up in the heart of southwestern New Mexico where his family instilled in him both a sense of patriotism and an appreciation for higher education. Following his graduation from high school, he enrolled at Western New Mexico University where he served in the United States Marine Corps Reserves. His dedication to each of these endeavors culminated on May 11, 2001 when he received both his bachelors degree and his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant. Clearly, Jesse had laid a solid foundation for success in his life and, naturally, his family was extremely proud. Unfortunately, the pride and all the hopes that accompany such a crowning moment were short-lived, because one day after his graduation Jesse was diagnosed with brain cancer.

Under any circumstances, such a prognosis is demoralizing, but Jesse's situation was even more grave because receiving his commission had the effect of triggering his military status to that of ``inactive reservist.'' Jesse was not scheduled to gain ``active duty'' status until he began basic officer training in November, and since TRICARE does not fully cover reservists, his family was left with the burden of enormous medical bills--a burden they simply could not meet.

Despite the heroic efforts of the Spiri family, inquiries by my staff and others in the New Mexico congressional delegation, as well as efforts by Marine Corps lawyers to find a legal solution to the problem, Jesse Spiri, an officer of the United States Marine Corps, went without health care coverage and, hence, without proper treatment. He lost his battle with cancer in July of 2001.

It is inconceivable to me, as I am sure it is for all Americans, that because of a legislative quirk, an officer of the United States armed forces could be left completely exposed to a dread disease without even the hope of receiving available treatments. But Jesse's battle is proof that if we do not, through legislative enactment, extend full medical coverage to commissioned reservists, another promising life may be lost in similar fashion.

I know that Jim Spiri, Jesse's dad, has vowed to dedicate his life to ensuring that no family has to face what his experienced. This goal, however, should not take a lifetime to achieve. By passing the ``Jesse Spiri Military Medical Coverage Act of 2003,'' we can help give Jim and the entire Spiri family peace in knowing that others will have hope where Jesse did not.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the subject matter before the Senate?

Mr. President, S. 14 is the comprehensive energy bill produced by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is accompanied by a report as contemplated by the rules of the Senate.

For those who are interested in the bill, there is a report and it will be available tomorrow. The 1-day delay is because of printing problems. Under the rule, there would be no amendments that can be offered today, in any event. It will be a day for discussion. Those who are looking toward the text in terms of what they might want to do to the bill and for the bill, the report will be in their hands before amendments are allowed.

I will start with some opening remarks and then yield to my friend, Senator Bingaman, for remarks on his side, and any other Senators on either side who desire to comment.

I might ask again a parliamentary inquiry: How much time has been set aside for this bill today pursuant to previous order?

Mr. President, our citizens need to know that they can, with some reasonable level of assurance, budget what their annual heating and cooling costs will be. This is not an area in which we can have much tolerance for those who propound politically correct policies.

Let me be blunt. I am a strong supporter of solar and renewable energy, and as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which appropriates the money for the research and development in those areas, I have supported millions, indeed billions, of dollars for research to develop less expensive solar and renewable energy technologies. However, they only represent a niche market, and they are not capable of providing a baseload power to our cities, our hospitals, and our factories.

The bill before the Senate today is comprehensive. It encourages the conservation of energy through efficiency programs. But it also takes steps to ensure reliable and cleaner production of electricity from coal, and provides adequate--in fact extremely significant--research and development programs to make coal burning cleaner; it ensures nuclear power and gas, and decreases our reliance on imported energy sources by increasing production of energy here at home.

The bill, in my opinion, is pragmatic. I am a strong supporter of opening ANWR. I believe oil and gas can be produced from ANWR with a minimal impact on the environment and a substantial positive impact on the U.S. energy security and ultimately on prices since it would cause a very substantial amount of new oil to be put into the

pool from which the world purchases its oil.

Those who say we should do without ANWR production, in my humble opinion, are cavalier about our energy needs. ANWR holds estimated reserves equal to three times as much oil as in the entire State of Texas, and I know of no one who proposes we close all the production in Texas on behalf of the environment, nor do I know anyone who thinks the production of oil in Texas is insignificant to the energy needs of America.

The impact on our economy is too easy to predict, but somehow they get away with arguing against ANWR--and they have in this body to date. However, I have not included ANWR in this bill, even though I understand there were votes to do so on the Energy Committee the committee I chair, because I know the 60 votes are not here on the floor to break a filibuster. I think that is a shame. But I also am not about to sacrifice a broader energy policy over that single, though important, issue.

In this committee, we have deferred to the floor in debate over climate change. I know the debate is coming. I saw no reason for consuming the time of the committee on a matter sure to be considered on the floor and a matter which is technically not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which produced this bill.

Recognizing that we agreed to defer some controversial issues to the floor, it is important that the Senate recognize the bill before it is the product of several years of work by the Energy Committee. It is very much, in that context, a bipartisan measure.

Earlier this year, I instructed the staff of the committee to circulate a staff draft of legislation that would incorporate the provisions and ideas that had been considered by the Senate and the conference held last year on H.R. 4. We then worked with our minority and all members of the committee to refine that text. Members on both sides of the aisle had constructive comments and recommendations. While we could not always agree, I do not think there is any Member of the body who can say that I and the committee staff were not open to suggestions or willing to work to clear potential amendments that might have been appropriate for this committee.

The end result of the process I have just described was a series of chairman's marks on the various titles of the legislation before us. While the media only comments on the matters where we could not reach agreement, I think it is accurate to say that every member of the committee had provisions that are very important to them included in the chairman's mark and cleared on a bipartisan basis. An enormous amount of work and careful perfecting of language was done on a bipartisan basis before the chairman's mark was circulated.

I also think my colleagues will agree that we followed an open process. While we moved things along at a rapid pace, I insisted that the chairman's mark of each title be circulated at least 48 hours in advance. That was followed, to the best of my knowledge, uniformly.

The most contentious issue clearly was electricity, and in that case I circulated a chairman's mark a full week in advance. Achieving a consensus on that title proved more than elusive. In the end, Republican members of the committee reached an agreement on an electricity title that is included in the legislation before the Senate. I sincerely hope this important legislation does not become wrapped up in partisan delaying tactics.

I know there has been speculation in the media that some want to deny President Bush his energy bill. This is not President Bush's energy bill. This is not Pete Domenici's energy bill. At the moment, what you have before you is a recommendation of your Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and I am proud to bring it before you. Yes, many of the provisions and suggestions come from the President's task force, which took many days and many weeks to put together their recommendations. Yes, many of the suggestions come from past energy bills put together by this committee when it was controlled by the other side of the aisle.

This bill contains numerous provisions that had bipartisan support. Many were initiatives offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I was happy to support. Senator Akaka, for example, made major contributions to the hydrogen title, as did Senator Dorgan and others. While the President has provided important support for the hydrogen section, for which I congratulate him, I want to make it clear that the Senate has before it a comprehensive hydrogen title crafted over many weeks on a bipartisan basis by your committee.

The same can be said for all of the titles. Not one title is the same as the original staff discussion draft. In every case, I included amendments in the chairman's mark that were suggested by my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. The extent of that bipartisan consensus was not evident in our business meetings where attention obviously was on provisions where we could not come together. But, in fact, this legislation is bipartisan in its substance. I expect to fully support other amendments here in the Chamber that will have bipartisan support, such as a carbon sequestration provision that Senators Wyden and Craig have been working on for a long time.

Let me summarize the 12 titles of this bill.

The oil and gas title: This permanently reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and provides production incentives for marginal wells so that those sources will continue to be produced. It provides royalty relief for production in extremely deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and for natural gas production in those areas of the gulf that are beyond 15,000 feet deep.

It creates a pilot program in five regional Bureau of Land Management offices to coordinate all the Federal permitting necessary to produce oil or gas on Federal lands.

It authorizes the construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. This will bring gas to the United States in large quantities--not next week or next month, but without this provision it may never come to this part of the United States from Alaska. With the provisions in this bill, which essentially are indemnification provisions for those who will construct this pipeline, which is extremely fragile--fragile both in construction nature and fragile as to financing, we have provided underpinning for it to become a reality.

The coal title is a major part of this bill because coal is a major resource of the United States as we look to our future with reference to energy. The coal title authorizes approximately $2 billion for clean coal technology. The program is a major one. It is not the result of any one Senator's thinking. A number of Senators on the committee and a number of Senators not on the committee with general interest in the subject of coal and coal development are interested in this section. My thanks go out to all of them.

There isn't any separate section on Indian energy. The Indian people of the United States are the proprietors of large amounts of property. On this property and in this property lie various assets and resources. This section authorizes the Indian tribes of this country to enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior to develop their energy resources. Once agreements between the Indian people and the Secretary of the Interior are entered into, the tribe can then enter into leases or production on their tribal lands with the same rights as if they were private landowners. This last section of the Indian lands title will be the subject matter of significant debate, and I welcome and look forward to that debate.

In the end, however, the purpose of this bill will be to say to our Indian people, if you want to develop resources in the field of energy that lie within your lands, we are giving you the authority to do so and hopefully in a streamlined manner so that it will not be forever bogged down in the redtape and bureaucracy of Indian lands being subject to the Federal Government's fiduciary relationships.

There is a title on nuclear energy. We call it the nuclear energy title. This permanently reauthorizes the Price-Anderson law of the land. Price-Anderson has taken on a name and a meaning all of its own. It stands for the proposition that a law adopted by Representative Price and Senator Anderson which makes it possible for nuclear power to exist will remain the law of the land indefinitely.

Second, we authorize funds for an advanced fuel cycle initiative to develop ways to reduce the volume and the toxicity of spent nuclear fuel. It authorizes the Secretary of Energy, subject to appropriations, to enter into loan guarantees to assist in the construction of 8,400 megawatts of new nuclear power if the Secretary determines that the plants are necessary for energy diversity, security, or clean air attainment.

Last, it directs that an advanced reactor will be built in Idaho to demonstrate new safety, efficiency, and proliferation resistance to produce hydrogen and prove to the world that a new generation of nuclear powerplants substantially different--if not completely different--from the plants we have today can be built.

This entire nuclear section is of great concern for some. For others, it is an exciting challenge for a new future for the United States and the world, and indeed for more energy for more people with less air pollution.

The next title is called renewable energy. This mandates that the Federal Government purchase 7 \1/5\ percent of its energy requirements from renewable resources by 2011, thus saying that the U.S. Government has a weighted portion--that 7 \1/5\ percent of the energy that it needs will be from renewable resource acquisition. It will become the market, so to speak, the driving force for the purchase of renewable energy.

Under renewable energy, a second provision will authorize renewable energy production incentives. These will be discussed in more detail, and obviously from this Senator's standpoint they are exciting and necessary. Perhaps for others, they are insufficient and unnecessary. We will see which view prevails.

We streamline the licensing of hydroelectric facilities. This issue is long overdue. Hydroelectric facilities clearly must be relicensed. It is contended that currently the process is far too difficult, cumbersome, onerous, and in many respects unnecessary. We have streamlined it. That will be debated, and one way or another we will streamline the processes for hydroelectric facility licensing.

We encourage the exploration and development of geothermal resources, and we provide grants for turning forest materials from the areas of high-risk fire or disease into biomass energy--something that is long overdue and something that may, indeed, accomplish at least two goals at one time. It may, indeed, produce energy which will be clean, and at the same time it may clean up our forests, which many of us from the West have been anxiously wondering and waiting patiently to see happen.

In addition, there is an energy efficiency title in this bill. It requires a 20-percent improvement in the Federal Government's efficiency over the next 10 years. It authorizes grants for energy efficiency projects in low-income and rural areas. It sets several new standards for items such as transformers, compact fluorescent lamps, ceiling fans, and commercial refrigerators and freezers.

The transportation title is another section of this bill which stands out. It encourages the use of alternative fuel vehicles, and it requires Federal agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets by 3 miles per gallon by 2005. It improves the efficiency of locomotives and expands the authority of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to set fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, taking into account passenger safety and the impact on U.S. employment.

Incidentally, that provision is similar to a provision adopted in the Senate last year by a bipartisan vote of two Senators who said that is the way they want it, to direct further modification of CAFE standards for the United States.

We then have a new and exciting title, driven, to some extent, by a rather late pronouncement of our President regarding hydrogen and the American automobile engine. This hydrogen title authorizes $1.8 billion for the President's hydrogen fuel cell initiative to develop clean, renewable hydrogen cars.

It reauthorizes and increases funding for existing hydrogen research programs. It amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to require agencies to purchase 5 percent of new vehicles as hydrogen-powered vehicles in 2005 and 2007, increasing to 20 percent in subsequent years.

The research and development title addresses research and development needs to energy efficiency, distributed energy and electric energy systems, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil energy, science and energy and environment and management.

There is funding for research in many areas, such as nanotechnology, high-temperature superconductivity, and Genomes to Life.

A new Under Secretary position for energy and science is provided. Two new Assistant Secretary positions--one for science and one for nuclear energy--are provided.

The personnel and training title contains a number of programs to ensure that we have an adequate energy workforce in the decades to come.

Then we have, last but not least, a very difficult title, the electricity title. This title remands proposed rulemaking on Standard Marketing Design, SMD, and prohibits FERC from issuing a final order until July 1, 2005.

Second, it provides a sense of the Congress that membership in regional transmission organizations is voluntary. It amends the Federal Power Act to protect access to transmission lines, repeals PURPA's mandatory purchase requirement, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, makes the electricity market more transparent and resistant to manipulation, and increases the penalty for violations of the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act.

Mr. President, I understand there is an agreement that no amendments will be offered until Thursday. On Thursday, I expect an ethanol amendment to be offered, and I understand there are discussions underway as to who will offer that amendment and when.

For my part, I support the agreement reached last year on ethanol that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee last month. The reason I raise this subject is, this is another provision that is really not within the jurisdiction of this committee, as are three or four others that will become contentious and will be very deliberate and take much time. But there is no question, we cannot leave the floor without the subject matter of ethanol being considered, debated, and voted upon. That is why I have just stated what I believe the protocol will be.

Again, for my part, I do not do this in an effort to usurp the jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee but to face up to the reality and to urge that they consider this and offer to work with them in an effort to get what they have passed incorporated in this bill or at least put before the Senate as their effort with an opportunity for it to be passed and then, if necessary, amended.

I know there are some who oppose that proposal, and there will be amendments offered. Clearly, if history is revealing, there will be such occurring once that amendment is before the Senate.

I look forward to the debate and encourage my colleagues who support the ethanol proposal to offer their amendments as early as possible on Thursday.

My staff and Senator Bingaman's staff is on the floor and available, as I gather, now to begin the process of reviewing and clearing amendments where possible. I hope Members will take advantage of that and bring their amendments to the floor as soon as possible.

The leader has indicated he will give us sufficient time, with some intervening work obviously, to complete this bill as soon as the Senate deems practicable.

I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks and do hope some of the matters he has raised wherein we disagree can be worked out. As to others, we will remain in a state of disagreement and hopefully the Senate will be the referee and we will see where we end up.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of S. Res. 132, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Stevens.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk which are due for a second reading.

I ask that it be in order to read the titles of the bills en bloc.

I would object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of S. 14, the energy bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, those of us privileged to represent our fellow citizens on this hallowed floor get far too few opportunities to help usher in visionary projects that can potentially transform communities, both of man and of nature. I rise today to tell you about a project that has been discussed before on this floor; I bring it to your attention again because I believe it's a project worth doing and worth doing well. It concerns one of New Mexico's unique natural treasures: the Middle Rio Grande Bosque.

According to an old Chinese Proverb, ``if you are thinking 1 year ahead, sow seed. If you are thinking 10 years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking 100 years ahead, educate the people.'' The bill I am introducing today encompasses the wisdom of this proverb.

Two years ago, I joined the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the Army Corps of Engineers in unveiling a vision for the Bosque that would rehabilitate and restore this long neglected treasure of the Southwest. I return here today to begin implementing that vision.

The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.

Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is long: it has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous fuel have contributed to an increased susceptibility to fire. As a result, public access is problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened. And yet, it remains one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.

This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for generations to come: not only for generations of humans, but for the diverse plant and animal species that reside in it as well.

Situated in the heart of the State's largest city, its potential to be a special attraction for residents is exciting. Equally exciting are the potential benefits to the ecosystem as a whole. The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds, healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood trees.

This project could be one of the far too rare opportunities to both increase the quality of life for a city while assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. We would be increasing the attractiveness of Albuquerque to businesses while improving the home of the Silvery Minnow. Where trash is now strewn, walking paths and horse trails will run. Where jetty jacks and discarded rubble lie, cottonwood will grow. The dead trees and underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress embrace that chance.

Having grown up in along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure; and I lament the degradation that has occurred. Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991 and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I propose to build on that rehabilitation. The effort I put in front of you today is a logical complement to these previous efforts as well as towards Bosque revitalization, restoration, and recovery for the entire Rio Grande.

Already work is underway. Over the past two years, the Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken the task of conducting a study so that we might gain a better understanding of how best to rehabilitate and restore this beautiful Albuquerque greenbelt.

I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with this

idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District owns this vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner in identifying areas for non-native species and other environmental restoration work. Additionally, MRGCD continues to work on the development and implementation of an educational campaign for local public schools on the importance of the Bosque. Finally, MRGCD has continually worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone.

The Army Corps of Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor. The plan is well underway and is moving towards the development of a feasibility study.

Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million dollars in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in building a place to treasure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, those of us privileged to represent our fellow citizens on this hallowed floor get far too few opportunities to help usher in visionary projects that can potentially transform communities, both of man and of nature. I rise today to tell you about a project that has been discussed before on this floor; I bring it to your attention again because I believe it's a project worth doing and worth doing well. It concerns one of New Mexico's unique natural treasures: the Middle Rio Grande Bosque.

According to an old Chinese Proverb, ``if you are thinking 1 year ahead, sow seed. If you are thinking 10 years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking 100 years ahead, educate the people.'' The bill I am introducing today encompasses the wisdom of this proverb.

Two years ago, I joined the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the Army Corps of Engineers in unveiling a vision for the Bosque that would rehabilitate and restore this long neglected treasure of the Southwest. I return here today to begin implementing that vision.

The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.

Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is long: it has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous fuel have contributed to an increased susceptibility to fire. As a result, public access is problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened. And yet, it remains one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.

This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for generations to come: not only for generations of humans, but for the diverse plant and animal species that reside in it as well.

Situated in the heart of the State's largest city, its potential to be a special attraction for residents is exciting. Equally exciting are the potential benefits to the ecosystem as a whole. The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds, healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood trees.

This project could be one of the far too rare opportunities to both increase the quality of life for a city while assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. We would be increasing the attractiveness of Albuquerque to businesses while improving the home of the Silvery Minnow. Where trash is now strewn, walking paths and horse trails will run. Where jetty jacks and discarded rubble lie, cottonwood will grow. The dead trees and underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress embrace that chance.

Having grown up in along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is something I treasure; and I lament the degradation that has occurred. Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991 and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I propose to build on that rehabilitation. The effort I put in front of you today is a logical complement to these previous efforts as well as towards Bosque revitalization, restoration, and recovery for the entire Rio Grande.

Already work is underway. Over the past two years, the Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken the task of conducting a study so that we might gain a better understanding of how best to rehabilitate and restore this beautiful Albuquerque greenbelt.

I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with this

idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical component. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District owns this vital part of the Bosque which runs from the National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge. The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner in identifying areas for non-native species and other environmental restoration work. Additionally, MRGCD continues to work on the development and implementation of an educational campaign for local public schools on the importance of the Bosque. Finally, MRGCD has continually worked with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved, protected and enjoyed by everyone.

The Army Corps of Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque along the Albuquerque corridor. The plan is well underway and is moving towards the development of a feasibility study.

Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million dollars in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in building a place to treasure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Media Ownership in SR- 253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the constitution: When a Majority is Denied its Right to Consent'' on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Panel I: The Honorable Arlen Specter, U.S. Senator (R-PA);

The Honorable Charles Schumer, U.S. Senator (D-NY).

The Honorable Zell Miller, U.S. Senator (D-GA).

Panel II: Mr. Steven Calabresi, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, Illinois;

Mr. John Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Orange, California;

Mr. Bruce Fein, Esq., Fein & Fein, Washington, DC.;

Mr. Michael Gerhardt, Hanson Professor of Law, William & Mary School of Law, Williamsburg, Virginia;

Ms. Marcia Greenberger, Esq., Co-President, National Women's Law Center, Washington, DC.;

Mr. Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Tuesday, May 6, 2003, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Programs and Provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6 at 10 a.m., to receive testimony regarding S. 324, to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for certain trails in the National Trails System; S. 634, to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study on the feasibility of designating the Trail of the Ancients as a National Historic Trail; S. 635, to amend the National Trails, System Act to direct the Secretary to update the fleasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes; and S. 651 to amend the National Trails Systems Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the system, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Personnel Programs and Provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Seapower Programs and Provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Army PFC Lori Piestewa from Tuba City, AZ. Private Piestewa was killed in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 23. As the first Native American female member of the U.S. Armed Forces to lose her life in combat, Lori's sacrifice is historic. It is also a source of tremendous inspiration for our country's Native American population, many of whom reside in New Mexico.

I think most are now familiar with the story of the 507th Maintenance Company that was ambushed near An Nasiriyah. It was during this attack that Private Piestewa lost her life in defense of our country. The daughter of a Vietnam veteran, and the granddaughter of a World War II veteran, it is no wonder that she would volunteer to confront the threats facing our country. Obviously, patriotism runs deep in the Piestewa family, and it was surely this proud family history that inspired Lori to heed the call of duty.

As I read some of the reports about Lori Piestewa's life, I noticed that as a youngster, she participated in a program called Futures for Children. This program, which I have been privileged to support over the years, is focused on empowering Native American high school students to be leaders and role models in their community. Clearly, Private Piestewa was the embodiment of what this program stands for-- both as a leader and as someone young people can pattern their lives after. I

would encourage students in places like Tuba City, AZ, or Shiprock, NM, who want to make important contributions to their community, to look at the example set by this courageous young woman and consider participating in Futures for Children.

Mr. President, the fact is that at 22, Private Lori Piestewa was, herself, still a young person. But her belief in service and her sense of duty went well beyond her years. Hers is a life of which her family and, indeed, all Native Americans can be extremely proud. The prayers of a grateful nation go out to her family and friends at this very difficult time.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 6, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on Department of the Interior programs addressing western water issues. Contact: Shelly Randel at 202-224-7933 or Jared Stubbs at 202-224-7556.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on a job well done. He has skillfully navigated a difficult course to produce the budget conference report before us today. Congratulations.

I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate debates the FY 2004 Budget Resolution Conference Report.

It is my understanding the conference report before us assumes the revenue impact of enacting a mental health parity law by using the Congressional Budget Office score for S. 543 from the 107th Congress of $5.4 billion over 10 years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the case because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically referenced in the conference report. Rather, the overall revenue number is such that it assumes Congress will pass mental health parity legislation.

I thank the distinguished Chairman for his consideration and explanation of this important matter.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Frankly, no matter how difficult, we did produce a budget resolution. Obviously, it is less than unanimous in terms of the likes and dislikes for this proposal, but I submit it is far better for the Senate and for the people of this country that we have a budget resolution than we not have one at all.

Obviously, there will be opportunities to differ during the year, and there are provisions that will be difficult to maintain and to enforce. The truth is, we do know when we do not have a budget resolution, regardless of how contentious it is, we are inviting chaos. We are inviting a delay in almost every one of the processes that are ordinary and normal to this case without a resolution. There are plenty of Senators who do not agree with that. That is why the vote is 50/50. That is exactly what voting is for. Someone wins; someone loses. In this instance, the Vice President did what is provided for in our Constitution, provided the one-vote majority, and now we have a budget resolution.

I am hopeful that the implementation of that budget resolution, contrary to what has been said this evening by the other side, will be good for this country. I am confident that it will be better for this country than not to have one. Of that, I am positive.

Could there be a better one? Maybe, but there cannot be a better one and get votes in the Senate to have that as a budget resolution. If we could, we would have. This is the best we can do.

I compliment Senator Nickles, the new chairman, and all who worked with him. Obviously, the decorum, the demeanor, in getting this done requires more than a chairman. It requires a ranking member and the ranking member deserves our accolades.

In addition, I guarantee there are plenty of staff hours and toil and work on both sides of the aisle that went into this resolution. I commend each and every one of the staff who worked so hard to get us to this point.

Last but not least, I commend the majority leader for his dedicated and diligent work in helping the chairman get us to where we are today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 108-21 was filed for S. 212, High Plains Aquifer, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. For the benefit of the Members and the public, the following link to the CBO report is: ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/ 41xx/doc4123/s212.pdf.