Firefighters Affordable Housing Act

Mr. President, last week I proposed an amendment to this bill

that would prevent the administration from privatizing parts of the Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies.

I would like to submit for the Record some statements supporting my amendment. These are from the National Parks Conservation Association, the Wilderness Society, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the American Federation of Government Employees.

These organizations support my amendment because they share my belief that our National Parks and National Forests are public treasures that should be managed for posterity, not for profit.

Their letters cite many reasons why privatizing the operation of our National Parks and Forests would reduce the quality of maintenance and service.

As the letter from the Wilderness Society points out, the director of the National Parks Service wrote an internal memo warning that the administration's privatization policy could reduce visitor services, and cause layoffs of Parks Service workers.

These organizations realize that if we lose dedicated foresters, fire fighters, archaeologists and scientists, we will lose valuable knowledge about our precious public lands.

Protecting our National Parks and Forests is not just a job for these dedicated workers; it is a way of life. No job description can do justice to their dedication.

Just last month at Shenandoah National Park, a search team of four Park Service employees found a 10-year-old boy who was lost.

Today, the Park Service is reviewing their jobs, trying to determine whether they ought to be turned over to private contractors. Trying telling that little boy's parents that it isn't important to have workers who are familiar with our parks and forests.

These are some of the reasons that these organizations are opposed to privatization. There is another reason, which ought to concern every Member of this Senate. That is the unauthorized expenditure of public funds. It is our job as legislators to direct public funds to agencies and projects that will serve a public need. Congress has never authorized funds for outsourcing studies.

The Forest Service spent $10 million just last year on its outsourcing studies, 10 million that Congress had designated for preserving and protecting our national treasures. The Park Service has estimated that it could spend $3 million just to hire consultants. President Bush made a campaign promise to eliminate the $4.9 billion maintenance backlog that existed in the Park Service when he took office. That backlog is now estimated at $6.1 billion. Meanwhile, the Park Service has diverted funds from maintenance projects to conduct studies about outsourcing.

In the Pacific West region, several projects are being put off to pay for security measures and outsourcing, including: removing asbestos from old buildings in Yellowstone National Park, seismic safety rehabilitation for 18 buildings in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and upgrading the sewage lagoon at Crater Lake National Park. These projects would protect our parks and visitors. That's why Congress set aside money for them.

Just because a private contractor knows how to run a business doesn't mean he knows how to take care of our public parks. A few years ago, one park needed five new courtesy docks on a lake. The lowest bidding contractor designed metal docks for an area where temperatures in the summer reach 115 to 120 degrees. Metal docks would have burned visitors, so the design had to be thrown out. That wasted $21,000, and only two docks could be built with the remaining funds.

In another incident, public workers used to handle their own garbage collection, at a cost of about $150,000 a year. Then they contracted it out. Six years later, the cost is about $500,000 a year. It is no wonder that environmentalists, park visitors, and public employees are so concerned about the effect this policy is having on our public resources. The Bureau of Land Management just wasted $60,000 to study 26 positions in two States. The BLM employees won their competitions.

In all, BLM will spend almost $2 million this year to show the administration that its employees are the most capable and efficient to do their jobs. The public servants at BLM don't need an expensive consultant to prove their commitment to preserving our public resources; they prove it every day. Congress doesn't need that, either. That is why we never voted for it

Ten million dollars in the Forest Service, $3 million in the Park Service, $12 million in BLM, and next year it will be more--unless we stop it.

Article I of the Constitution requires Congress, not the President, to authorize and appropriate funds. The administration is bypassing Congress to implement its own agenda and is using unauthorized funds to do it. We work hard to make sure we fund projects that are in the best interest of the taxpayers. The administration wants to take away that role. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in doing our duty as United States Senators.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Washington leaves the floor, I would like to say it was only recently that I had the opportunity to see some of the natural beauty of the State of Washington. I, of course, had been to Seattle a number of times--the airport, went into town, and left. But I had the opportunity, within the past couple of months, to see various parts of Washington.

I will never forget the drive from Pasco, WA, to Seattle over the great Cascades. Those mountains and trees, the forests are so much different than the forests of Nevada. We are very proud of the great treasures we have around Lake Tahoe and other forests we have in Nevada. But the Cascades are in a different class, with totally different kinds of trees, different forests.

That is what the Forest Service is all about, having these people, who sign on to the Forest Service for life, to be the guardians and protectors of these great national treasures such as those around Lake Tahoe and those beautiful Cascades that I drove through.

To think we are considering putting these great national treasures out for profit rather than posterity frightens me. I appreciate very much the Senator from Washington standing up for the great Cascades. I am sure there are other beautiful parks in the State of Washington that you have described here that are as beautiful as I can imagine. But I want the Senator from Washington to know--and everyone within the sound of my voice--I was so impressed driving through those Cascades.

I repeat, I hope--and I know there is going to be efforts made to second degree this amendment because the majority is afraid of an up- or-down vote because we will win an up-or-down vote because people of both parties do not want to put these national treasures up for bid. What they are going to do is offer some kind of an amendment saying: Well, we have studied them. Let's get a report. And we will go ahead and continue doing the studies around Lake Mead, around the areas the Senator from Washington pointed out.

The reason this is such a calculated effort to hurt our parks is that they are taking money, as I outlined earlier, that has been set aside by congressional votes to take away the asbestos we have in some of our park facilities, to do work on sewers, and a lot of other things. They are taking money from that and studying whether it is a good idea to privatize. That is wrong. If they were going to do it the right way, they would come before Congress and say: We want to study what is going on in our national parks. Appropriate money for us.

They are doing indirectly what they know they can't do directly.

I hope everyone understands that this second-degree amendment, which will be offered shortly, is only an effort to help those who want to defeat this amendment to, in effect, get well by saying: Well, we voted for a study and the President has to report on these studies.

I want everyone to know a vote for this second-degree amendment--it may be a side-by-side amendment--is a vote to allow the outsourcing, the privatizing of the workforce of our national parks.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Washington that this second-degree amendment, which I haven't seen but I have been told what is in it, would basically allow the outsourcing studies to go on. And they have no money to do that so they are robbing other programs to do it. So the answer to the Senator's question is, yes, they would continue doing the outsourcing studies, as they call them, in an effort to privatize the workforce in the national parks.

There is a handout that has been distributed. When you can't defeat a measure on its face, what you resort to is name-calling. Here is what they have written:

Now is not the time to promote inefficiency. The Reid

amendment would support the Federal employees union agenda to

grow the size of the Federal workforce and avoid competition

of any kind.

That is so mean spirited and so wrong. When you can't defeat an issue on its face, what you do is resort to name-calling. What they have done here is say, this is all a big ploy of the unions. I offered into the Record earlier today groups that support this amendment that is sponsored by the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Nevada. There wasn't a single union I put forward as favoring this. I am sure they do, but I haven't talked to them. But we have resorted to name-calling, saying this is bad because the unions like it. I am sure the unions do like it if, in fact, there are unions there. I don't really know. But this has nothing to do with unions.

It has everything to do with protecting a dedicated workforce and to not put these employees out to minimum wage. That is in effect what it is. I know what we will do as we do in all of these privatizing methods: We will come in with a low-ball figure. We can do it so much cheaper. And then as soon as the contract is entered, it balloons. I gave an example this morning. One of the parks was picking up garbage. It cost $150,000. They put it out for private bid. And now within 3 years time it is a half a million dollars for the same work Government employees were doing.

I appreciate very much the support of my friend from Washington. Again, I recognize her ability to support working men and women and not corporate America. I do know the Senator from Washington has done a great job of protecting the corporations in her State. But here is an issue that deals directly with working men and women. And, of course, the Senator from Washington has sided with the working men and women of our country.

Amendment No. 1754 To Amendment No. 1731

(Purpose: To substitute a requirement for an annual report on

competitive sourcing activities on lists required under the Federal

Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 that are performed for the

Department of the Interior by Federal Government sources)

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time consumed by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, will be counted toward the 25 minutes; is that right?

The unanimous consent request has 50 minutes divided-- actually 60 minutes. That time is equally divided. It is my understanding that the 50 minutes between Senator Voinovich and myself is to be equally divided. I simply ask that the time he already consumed should be counted against the 25 minutes. That is my statement in the form of a question.

I ask for that modification.

I object.

Mr. President, we will try this again. Is the time for Senator Enzi going to be counted toward the 25 minutes that the majority has?

Will the Chair inform me how long the Senator from Wyoming spoke?

Mr. President, everyone should understand a vote for the Enzi-Craig-Voinovich amendment is a vote to allow further outsourcing studies to go on. That is wrong.

What is this amendment about? It is about the Park Service spending millions of dollars in outsourcing studies which would siphon off funds critical to the needs within the parks.

The amendment that has been offered by a significant number of Senators--and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton as cosponsors--allows current studies to move forward on the implications to be evaluated. Current studies can go forward. A short pause is not too much to ask, for the protection of our national heritage is at stake.

The House included the same reasonable language in its bill. According to the House report, the Appropriations Committee was ``concerned about the massive scale of seemingly arbitrary targets and considerable costs of initiatives which are on such vast tracts that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''

That is the end of the quote. That is from the Republican House of Representatives report language in their appropriations bill.

The administration's own Park Service director has indicated the current

plan will reduce services to the public, will negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service, and will not save resources. That is from the administration's own Park Service director.

I would like to read from a letter sent to me by a Park Service employee. Remember, this applies to more than just the Park Service. The Forest Service, the BLM, and other Interior agencies are affected. This man even signed his name, and, of course, it jeopardizes his job. But he is a substantial man, I am sure. His name is Chuck Luttrell. It is a long letter. I will not read all of it.

Among other things, he said:

. . . will the public be tolerant of the selling of the

care and operation of our national treasures to a profit

corporation? Will our parks get the same care, will our

culture and natural heritage be safe in the hands of

companies that could turn out to be Enrons, Worldcoms?

He further states:

The United States of America owes and has pledged a

commitment to our military veterans. We have preferential

hiring regulations for veterans. A private contractor has no

such obligation. The Federal Government has the strongest

commitment to diversity and equality there is.

He says if it is put out to the private sector, veterans will have no further preference, and diversity will go out the window.

In recent years the Congress wrestled with the issues of

health care and insurance. Federal employees have excellent

health insurance options. Again contractors have far

different priorities and as we all know millions of people

working in private industry have no insurance.

Years ago Congress passed the Davis Bacon Act to ensure

that some workers earned a fair, liveable, negotiated wage.

We employees of Lake Mead's Maintenance Division are an

example of Congress' will. But any contractor that would

replace us has no such obligation.

The Park Service, in my 22 years of service, has never been

sufficiently funded. As an agency, we have always been on

starvation rations, and I can assure you that at my level,

Lake Mead N.R.A., there is absolutely no fat in the

system. For years our managers have been required to do

more with less.

The National Park System he talks about has 10 million visitors a year. Lake Mead is the second busiest park in the whole United States.

He goes on to say:

When it comes to saving the taxpayer's dollars nothing is

more efficient than having the work done for free. Nationwide

the National Park Service receives hundreds of thousands of

hours of donated labor. At Lake Mead N.R.A. alone last year

the public volunteered over 92,000 hours of which nearly

21,000 hours were in performing maintenance work. People will

volunteer to work for the National Park Service because they

recognize it is a noble and worthy gift to the country.

People do not, as we all know, volunteer to work for private

contractors.

He goes on to say:

Beyond being a workforce for our respective Parks, we

employees of the National Park Service are a national work

force. Lake Mead N.R.A. has sent people out over the years to

help with everything from oil spill cleanups to hurricane

relief. Every year Lake Mead employees are fighting this

Nation's wildland fires. This year, as always, we are on the

line protecting places like Denver, Colorado, and Show Low,

Arizona. But who will serve and man the fire camps when we

are gone?

It sounds cliche, but for the large majority of the

National Park Service's employees their work is more than

just a job. It is commonplace for people in my outfit to do

much more than just what is written in their position

descriptions. I am a carpenter. I also teach all of our

Rangers how to conduct water search and rescues. I'm not

special. The maintenance employees of Lake Mead N.R.A. serve

on the SCUBA team, on District fire engine companies, and

with search and rescue teams. We serve on Park committees and

often volunteer for special details. We are trained in first-

aid and are first responders. We direct traffic at accident

sites, we help land medical evacuation helicopters, and we

help handle victims and patients. We are also the eyes and

ears for our Rangers. We often are the ones who discover

trouble and report it. I don't think that it is too far of a

stretch to say that in some small way we are even part of

homeland security . . . let me say that we are essentially

ambassadors for the National Park Service. We are uniformed

employees constantly in the public eye. We are often the

first and sometimes the only ``official'' contact visitors

have with the Service. We answer questions, give directions,

and not all that uncommonly change a tire or two. We do all

these things and more, yet they are not in our job

descriptions and a contractor replacing us would not be

obligated to perform any of them.

I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

But it is just not employees trying to protect their jobs. They are people of good will who enjoy our parks. This is not a statement from an employee of the Park Service or BLM or the Forest Service. This is a letter from a person who cares about what is going on.

This letter is intended to voice my outrage at President

Bush's plans for privatizing our Nation's National Park

System.

The President's planned study and outsourcing of our

Nation's most valuable and symbolic resource should create

indignation in the heart of any American. Our parks have been

on the short end of the funding stick for years, but this

recent maneuver goes too far. As you know, private contracted

companies are only interested in generating the maximum

profit, no matter what corners and services get cut in the

process.

Will you allow our National Parks to become another victim

of the ``Wal-Mart Syndrome''? Are we going to allow a system

that services our nation's last natural treasures with a

network of uninsured low wage caretakers from the lowest

contract bidder?

The other factor that you should consider is the loss of

thousands of annual volunteer hours that our parks receive

from the American public. Hundreds of men and women give on

themselves each year to support our parks. However, no one

will wish to denote their personal time to maintain the

thousands of miles of roads and trails in our parks to the

benefit of some private company.

The President has gotten his war and desired tax cuts, but

I urge you as my representative to put your foot down and

stop this plan from proceeding.

Mr. President, from another citizen:

As a resident of Nevada I find the proposed outsourcing of

National Park Service personnel to be outrageous and almost

offensive.

Employees of the Park Service are driven by a respect for

the parks and love of what they do. Nevadans visiting our

national parks want members of the Park Service, not profit-

minded corporations, enriching their experiences. I oppose

privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans,

endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.

Too many private firms have gone this route, costing jobs

in local communities, opening doors for big business, while

causing the local economies to falter.

We live, work, and play in this State. Many of the Park

personnel are our neighbors and friends. They care deeply

about what they do.

I do not think a commercial corporation can do this--I have

visions of an HMO system for our National Lands and shudder.

Who gets the profit from this private enterprise? We've seen

enough of the favoritism the current administration employs,

and frankly, this seems another opportunity for more of the

same.

I would certainly no longer volunteer for the Forest

Stewardship activities in the Lake Tahoe basin. I doubt that

many would. Volunteering time for a profitmaking concern is

not logical--why help a corporation that doesn't care diddly

about the land, the lakes, or the environment increase their

profits and not be paid for the ``contribution?''

I'm one small voice but I am convinced that privatization

of our national park system would be another step to

demolishing what little resources we have now and what we can

hope to gain in the future to hold and treasure for future

generations.

I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

We read editorial comments from all over America opposing what is happening here. I have one editorial from the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, written by Michael O'Callaghan: ``These Are Your Parks.''

Among other things, he says:

Americans who love and use our nation's parks have been

wondering when former secretaries of the Interior were going

to speak. Two of them just did that Tuesday when Bruce

Babbitt and Stewart Udall challenged the attempt to privatize

the positions servicing the parks and the public visitors . .

. They both see the turning over of 70 percent of the jobs to

the private sector as both ``radical'' and ``reckless.''

Among other things, O'Callaghan states:

Privatization of services forces within our park system

would be but the first deadly step to turning them away from

public recreation into a big business. Next they could have

neon signs at park gates leading to Yellowstone Enron, RCA

Zion, U.S. Cellular, Crater Lake, or Death Valley Coors. How

about Basin Bank One? They already have signs in big city

ballparks and this could be their next big step.

I ask unanimous consent the full context of the O'Callaghan editorial be printed in the Record.

How much of my 25 minutes remains?

I repeat, anyone who supports the amendment of my friends, the distinguished Senator from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming, is voting to allow privatization of our national treasures to continue. Muddle it up--and that is what this amendment does--muddle it all you want, that is what it is. Some people think you can privatize everything. You cannot do that. You cannot do that. There are certain things that should be off limits. Our national treasures should be one of them.

I repeat for the third time, anyone who votes for the amendment of my friends from Ohio and Wyoming is voting to privatize. Say it however you want, but Udall and Babbitt, former Secretaries of the Interior, recognize what is taking place. We have been told by my friends that there is no such privatization plan underway. If that is true, I point out there should be no objection to my amendment.

Why study a plan, a privatization plan that will never be put into effect? My amendment puts a hold on the administration's privatization plans for this coming fiscal year.

I am getting more concerned each day. This Constitution I carry around with me sets forth the separation of powers doctrine, executive branch of government, legislative branch of government, judicial branch of government, separate but equal. One is not superior to the other. I see more and more coming from this administration that the Congress is not relevant.

If the President of the United States and his people want to study the privatization of our national treasures, let them come to Congress and get the money to do it. What are they doing? They are scavenging the money from present programs. I listed today a number not being done because they were using this money for studies.

We have already learned from the Park Service director who works under George Bush that the current plan will reduce service to the public, negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service workforce, and will not save resources. This is something that should

be under the prerogative of the legislative branch.

Let us provide money if it is such a good idea. Do not just steal it from other programs within the agencies. That is what they are doing. Therefore, we cannot do things to remove asbestos, to repair sewer systems, to take care of water systems, and to provide renovation in the parks.

President Bush said when he took office that he wanted to reduce the backlog of renovation, repair, and maintenance that needed to be done in our parks. Well, that was doublespeak, I guess. That is ``1984'' revisited--Orwell's book--because, in fact, it has gone up. The backlog has gone up from 4.9 billion to 6.1 billion. Let's do it the right way. Let's protect our constitutional prerogatives.

In 2002 and 2003 the agencies under the jurisdiction of this bill reprogrammed funds to study privatization. I repeat what the House committee report on the Interior bill noted: The massive privatization initiative appears to be ``on such a fast track that the Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made'' by the administration. The committee's required programming guidelines are not being followed by the administration.

That is report language from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Shouldn't we go along with them? The answer is yes. This was in the Republican committee report. That is why, in part, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee prohibited the expenditure of funds for more studies in 2004. That is precisely what my amendment does. We agree with the House.

Others have argued privatization will save money. The General Accounting Office estimated this may or may not be true. Studies of outsourcing at the Department of Defense, by contrast, where outsourcing is common, have been unable to demonstrate a single penny of cost saving. What we do know is that private companies will take care of our parks under their agenda.

We should be very proud that since World War II veterans get a preference. If you served in the military, you apply for a job, you take a test, and we give you a few extra bonus points because you served our country. The private sector will not have to do that. They do not have to follow the same rules and regulations we have dealing with hiring the handicapped. They have all kinds of ways to cut corners in the private sector. It is not going to save money.

What I believe, and lots of other people believe, is private companies will not take care of our parks and forests and other public lands with the same motivation the people who are now working there do. This has nothing to do with labor unions. I know there is a letter circulating saying this is an effort by the minority to protect labor unions. As I said earlier today, I read into the Record different entities which support this amendment: the Wilderness Society, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the American Federation of Government Employees. There is one union and three public service groups. This has nothing to do with unions. It has everything to do with protecting our national treasures.

I talked about one contractor who wasted $21,000 on a workable design to build courtesy docks on a lake in a park. Of course, the Park Service employees would have known that in a second. I talked about garbage collection. When the garbage was collected by Federal employees, it cost $150,000. Now it is done in the private sector, and it costs over $500,000.

I talked about public employees at Shenandoah National Park who rescued a lost boy. An official at Glacier National Park, who contracted out their janitorial services, said: ``We didn't really save anything from a dollars and cents perspective. The costs came in the above and beyond things the Park Service janitors regularly did that were outside their regular job descriptions.''

Privatization does not always work. It has not worked in Nevada at our two military bases. Privatization can affect the experience visitors have at our parks, as the Director of the Park Service has said. And I quoted that on two separate occasions just in the last few minutes.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Although my friend from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming have said privatization saves money for maintenance projects at our parks, in every instance that has proven to be false. These agencies have reprogrammed millions of dollars in 2002 and 2003 from maintenance projects to perform these unauthorized maintenance studies. These funds were diverted from maintenance projects in our parks.

I personally think privatization is a bad idea, but my amendment does not stop current studies. It prevents new ones from starting until Congress has more information about the administration's initiative and the effects it is having on our national parks and forests. They have already wasted all that money studying what goes on. Why don't they issue a report on that and stop, have a slowdown, a pause, a timeout on going forward with more study? That is what I have asked for in my amendment.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend, the manager of this bill.

Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect--I have been somewhat impersonal, and I do not want to do that--the Park Service Director now is a woman by the name of Fran Mainella. I want the Record to reflect she is the one who has indicated the current plan would reduce services to the public, negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service workforce, and will not save resources.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend, Senator Thomas, from Wyoming. He has always been so cordial and polite to me, as I am sure he is to everyone. He is a real advocate. My point is, he is absolutely wrong on this issue. His argument makes our point. He says: We are not privatizing. But that is what they are doing. They are studying all these different programs, and the purpose is to privatize.

The FAIR legislation: Of course, I understand what that bill was, but it also took into consideration that the money was to be appropriated to do the studies, not to be scavenged from other operations.

I read only one editorial from the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, but there are others. Here is one from the Los Angeles Times: ``Keep Pros Who Love Parks.''

The first paragraph reads:

In a memo to her bosses at the Department of the Interior,

National Park Service Director Fran Mainella said the

administrative costs of a plan to contract out some Park

Service jobs to private companies could seriously cut the

already rock-bottom level of visitor services and seasonal

operations. Unfortunately, that would only be one piece of

the damage.

They go on to say that this is a wrongheaded idea and bad for our national treasures:

The nation's most important natural and historic sites

deserve to be protected by workers with expertise, experience

and dedication to the parks. They are there now, and in the

proud green uniform of the National Park Service.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

A small newspaper, smaller than the Las Vegas Sun, one from Missoula--of course, Missoula, MT--also talks about how wrong it is. They are so specific, and they know because they live in Glacier National Park. They say outsourcing simply is not good.

There are editorials from all over the country that talk about how bad an idea this is. Remember, anyone voting for the amendment offered by my friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, is voting to outsource, to privatize our national treasures. You can say: I really didn't mean to do that; all I did was want studies to be completed.

That isn't what we have here. We have agreed that they can complete the studies they have already engaged in, even though they stole the money from other things that needed to be done within the entities. But to vote for the Voinovich amendment is to vote for privatization. To vote for the Reid amendment is to vote for a time-out, a pause.

Amendment No. 1740

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

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

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

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

Madam President, anyone who supports this amendment is supporting contracting out. All you have to do is read their amendment and that is what it says. They say the President will issue reports. He has not done that. That is the only thing it does. It allows contracting out to go forward without authorization of Congress and without any appropriation for the studies to be taken. Remember what they are doing now is scavenging the money from other work that needs to be done within the various public land entities. It is unfair. It is wrong. Anyone who supports the Voinovich amendment supports contracting out, without question. I urge a ``nay'' vote.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

Mr. President, everyone should understand that what has just taken place is to allow privatization to continue in our public land agencies. Clearly, that is what happened. I hope the Members of this body will approve the Reid amendment and allow this matter to go to conference. It appears this last vote was a cover-your-rear-end vote. So we probably will lose on this amendment. I think it is a shame.

I read into the Record how people who work at the agencies feel, editorial comments from all over the country, and comments from private people who know how important the parks are. Veterans preference would not be there; disabilities act would not apply. There are so many things that are unfair to the dedicated people working for our public land agencies.

I hope there will be a ``yea'' vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

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

Mr. President, while we are waiting for some other presenters, speakers on the amendments that are pending, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes, and ask it appear in the morning business section of today's Record.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. I must point out I think there are wonderful public servants in this country serving, day and night, the public interest, the public need. I think this simple, easy notion that you can just contract everything out and things will be better is really pretty much wrong- headed.

Oh, there may be some circumstances where it is appropriate, but I will tell you, you take a look at firefighters, the police officers, go back to 9/11 and talk to the folks who responded to the calls on 9/11 when that terrible tragedy occurred in New York City, the devastating attack on this country--and, yes, those were public employees who were rushing up those stairs--firefighters, law enforcement men and women, rushing up those stairs--losing their lives, as the building was collapsing, trying to save lives. These were public employees. There are so many serving in so many different ways--the archaeologists and biologists working in the Park Service and in so many different areas.

In this piece of legislation, one of the agencies had spent money they should not have spent studying contracting out when, in fact, they did not have the money for the kind of basic repairs and maintenance necessary to be done in the parks. So instead of doing what they should have done to keep the parks in the kind of shape they should be, they were using money to study: How can we contract these jobs out?

Well, there are plenty of examples--my colleague from Nevada has used some of them--where you completely lose control with respect to contracting out. I just think it is important sometimes to stop and take a look at the workforce that belongs to the public sector, and to say that, in many instances--most instances--they do a wonderful job to serve this country very well, and there is no substitute--no, not contracting out, and no other substitute I know of--that could replace that group of dedicated public workers who serve this country day after day after day. That is why I am happy to support this amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I support and cosponsored the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. I think it is not only written appropriately at this point and has proper safeguards, but I think it is also a necessary amendment for the reasons that my colleague from New Mexico has described.

I understand my colleague from Wyoming, who is chairman of the subcommittee on these issues, and his statement as well. If we pass this amendment with this particular wording, I think it accomplishes something important, and I am happy to cosponsor it and support it.

I ask unanimous consent the vote be a 10-minute vote and all succeeding votes be 10-minute votes.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, let me, too, thank my colleague, Senator Burns. This is a very significant piece of legislation. We have had excellent cooperation. I also thank the staff, if I might: Peter Kiefhaber, Brooke Livingston, and, of course, the majority staff: Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Steve Fonnesbeck, and also Ryan Thomas.

The Interior bill has, on occasion, been a bill that has taken a long time to move through the floor in some years. Other years, it has moved rather quickly. I think we have had a good discussion on some very important issues. I appreciate the work of my colleague from Montana. I believe we have a couple of managers' packages, and then I think we will have an opportunity to voice vote final. There is one additional amendment as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we should momentarily come to the floor with the final managers' package and wrap up this bill and I think we will have a voice vote at the end. I did want to make a couple of comments while we were waiting for the final pieces of this appropriations bill.

Earlier today I visited just a bit about the issue of reconstruction in the country of Iraq. Today we were visited in our Democratic caucus by Ambassador Bremer who just returned from Iraq. He appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday, before our caucus today. He talked about the request of $87 billion, both for military appropriations for our defense establishment--that is appropriations of about $60 billion necessary for the efforts we are making in the country of Iraq--and, in addition to that, there is about slightly more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq.

I want to make the point that first I think every dollar requested for the military could, should, and I believe will be appropriated quickly to support the efforts of our troops. This Congress has to understand when we ask our sons and daughters to go to war and to commit themselves for the mission this country asks of them, we must support them with appropriations.

The second issue, the reconstruction in Iraq that is necessary, is a different and an interesting problem. Should the American taxpayer pay for the reconstruction of Iraq? First of all, we did not target Iraq infrastructure. Shock and Awe was a campaign that began with smart bombs and smart weapons. It did not target their electric grid. It did not target their dams. It did not target their roads. It did not target the infrastructure of Iraq. The destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq has come from a guerrilla insurgent movement inside Iraq, but it has not come from American military force. So the question is, who should provide the $20-plus billion for reconstruction of Iraq?

Let me make a point about that. Iraq is a country of 24 million people sitting

on sandy soil that contains the second largest reserves of oil in the world, the second largest reserves in the world next to Saudi Arabia. It is estimated that by next July the Iraqi oil wells will be producing around 3 million barrels per day. It is also estimated at that level the net export value of Iraqi oil will be about $16 billion a year. So over the next 10 years the Iraqi oil revenues should produce about $160 billion.

In addition to that, I asked Ambassador Bremer what do you intend to do with respect to the Iraqi oil revenue and what do you intend to do with respect to debts that are owed to other countries from the country of Iraq? The reason I ask that question is, I said: Why don't you use Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq? It seems to me logical you would do that.

He said, We can't do that because Iraq owes a great deal of money. It has great debt.

I said, Who holds the debt?

Yesterday during the Appropriations Committee hearing, he said Russia--Iraq owes Russia money, it owes France money, and Germany money.

Since yesterday I have gotten more information about that. It turns out the largest holders of Iraq debt are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It is very interesting to me: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the largest holders of debt, according to published reports, from the Iraqi government.

So the Iraqi government owes Kuwait and the Saudis perhaps $50 billion. Who is the Iraqi government? Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein obligated the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, to pay certain moneys to other countries for the debts incurred. But Saddam Hussein does not exist; his government is gone. So who should repay that debt? Ambassador Bremer says the American taxpayer should repay that debt. I don't think so. I think what ought to happen is you ought to collateralize or securitize the next 10 years of Iraqi oil. You can easily provide the resources for the reconstruction in Iraq from the oil that will be pumped from the sands of Iraq in the next 10 years. Iraqi oil ought to be used to pay for the reconstruction in the country of Iraq.

With respect to the debt Ambassador Bremer says under international obligations is owed by the country of Iraq to other countries, it seems to me there is a term called debt forgiveness. I don't know how you say to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: You were owed money by Iraq. Go find Saddam Hussein and collect it. I don't know quite how you say that, but there must be a way of saying that. Go find Saddam Hussein and try to collect that debt. That is who obligated that debt on behalf of the Iraqi people.

It seems to me, the first thing we ought to do is say this debt that overhangs the people of Iraq ought to be negotiated down, first and foremost. Second, it seems to me we ought to say we will provide all the money that is requested, first for the military side of the request for the appropriations the President asked for, and second, we will provide the money, because we should, with respect to reconstruction. But it will not be American taxpayers' money. We will provide the mechanism by which we monetize or rather collateralize or securitize the oil revenues that we pump from under the sands of Iraq over the next 10 years.

Ambassador Bremer says that will be up to 3 million barrels per day by next July. At 3 million barrels per day you produce about $20 billion a year, about $4 billion of which is going to be needed for Iraqi oil needs, the rest of which is available for export. That is $16 billion of export earnings. That is the way you reinvest in Iraq. Invest in Iraq infrastructure with oil revenue from Iraq.

Ambassador Bremer said one other thing that was interesting to me. He said, by the way, we have just put together a tax structure in Iraq. I might point out that a nonoil state, that is a nation that doesn't have oil reserves, and that's a good many nations around the world, they put together a revenue structure, a tax system by which they raise the money to build the schools, to build the roads, to maintain the electric grid. They put together a tax system to do that.

They have just put together a new tax system in the country of Iraq and Ambassador Bremer pointed out yesterday we have a new tax system. Apparently that is designed to produce the revenue to run the Government of Iraq. He said the top income tax rate is 15 percent.

I am thinking to myself, so those at the highest income levels in Iraq--and there are some very high income-earners in Iraq--will pay a 15 percent tax and then American taxpayers at the highest level will pay a 39 percent tax and we should pay a 39 percent tax so we can send money to the Government of Iraq so the Government of Iraq can send money to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to satisfy past debt obligations while the Iraqi citizens at the top of the income level are paying 15 percent income tax. I don't think so. That is not a construct that makes much sense to me.

I am not saying by all of this that we don't have obligations--we do--or that we don't have a priority interest in dealing with the military and the nonmilitary needs in Iraq. We do. The question is not whether; it is how.

My hope is we will bifurcate this request for appropriations of $87 million, and take the military side first and pass that. I support all of that. We ought to move that through this Congress quickly.

Second, we ought to work with Ambassador Bremer and others and describe to those folks how we want to reconstruct Iraq to rebuild the infrastructure.

Let me describe what they are talking about. It is restoring marshland, building seven communities with 3,500 new homes, rehabilitating 1,000 schools, developing a telecommunications system. Need I go on?

Is the reconstruction of Iraq necessary in which to build a market system and a healthy economy? Perhaps. Should it be done? Sure. With whose money? Who pays the bill?

In this case, it makes no sense to me for us to say the American taxpayer should foot that bill for reconstruction. It makes eminent good sense, in my judgment, for us to say we will help, as we already have, to develop the central banking system of Iraq, develop the economy that is now emerging in Iraq, and through that process securitize future Iraqi oil revenues. As I see it, that is $320 billion in revenues over the next 20 years. It just seems to me that $320 billion in 20 years provides the collateral to easily provide the upfront funds--not a grant from the American taxpayer, but a loan in the form of a security document securitizing or collateralizing future oil production in Iraq.

We will have a lot of discussion about this. I suspect some will say if you do not believe in every single sentence or every punctuation mark in the President's request that somehow you are not thinking squarely. I really believe the piece we ought to describe in some great detail here and the piece we ought to debate is the issue of who should pay for the reconstruction of Iraq--not the issue of security. We need to do that. Not the issue of military needs; we need to do that, and now. But we need to have a good, strong debate here in this Congress about how to provide the funds for the reconstruction that is being proposed in Iraq. I for one come down on the side of saying let us have Iraqi oil produce the revenues to invest in Iraq. That is what makes good sense to me.

For the record, let me describe the circumstances with Iraqi debt. The reason I do this is because Ambassador Bremer says that is why they propose the American taxpayer pay the money for Iraqi reconstruction rather than have Iraqi oil do it. The World Bank Debtor Reporting System is where you find the evidence of which countries have how much debt. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was one of the few countries that did not report its debt statistics to the World Bank Debtor Reporting System. So you have to rely on other pieces of information.

The best we can determine, the biggest lenders to Saddam Hussein were France, Germany, Gulf states, Japan, Kuwait, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Of those, the largest was Saudi Arabia, then Kuwait, and Russia a close third. All the other Gulf states together were substantial--close to $30 billion, France and Germany in the $6 billion range.

I think it is really important to ask the question. If you are saying we can't use Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq because Iraq has all of these debts Saddam Hussein apparently incurred, then

how do you tell countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and how do you tell them quickly, by the way, that the debt you have, that paper you hold, is the debt you incurred in negotiations with Saddam Hussein. We are sorry. He doesn't live here anymore. You might want to put that piece of paper somewhere where you have other things to collect which have very little worth, then start over understanding that Iraqi oil can be used to reconstruct the urgent needs that exist in the country of Iraq.

I will have more to say about this at some future point. Because Ambassador Bremer is here, I wanted to make that point. Let me also say that I said to Ambassador Bremer we pray for his safety. He has a very difficult job and dangerous job, as do the men and women who wear our country's uniform and who are in Iraq today and stationed in other parts of the world as well. We pray for their safety and thank them for their services to our country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support this amendment. We have reviewed it. I am a cosponsor. I asked Senator Burns to include me as a cosponsor.

This really needs to be done. In fact, we need to do more than this. This is what we can do at this moment and we will continue to work on this in conference.

Mr. President, if I might, while we are waiting, on this issue of fire and fire suppression, I know Senator Burns has spoken on this floor at some length, and we have had a discussion in the committee. We have to really stop this process of underfunding these accounts at the start of the year. It is not a great surprise that we are going to have forest fires. I come from a State that doesn't have a lot of trees. But my colleague, Senator Burns, comes from a State that is full of trees.

In a good many States in this country, we have seen the devastation by massive forest fires. They cause a substantial amount of damage. The amount of money that is required to deal with the issue of forest firefighting and forest fire suppression is a very substantial amount of money. We know at the start of the year and in recent years that the money has not been requested which is going to be necessary. Then we come later on in the year acting wide-eyed and surprised--not my colleague from Montana. He never acts wide-eyed and surprised. But there are some who walk around here acting like they have just been hit with this huge surprise. It is not a surprise to us.

At the start of the year we need to ask OMB to request the money that is necessary, and we need the Congress to appropriate the money necessary so we are not in this bind every single year.

The amendment we have just agreed to, the Burns amendment, is an amendment that moves us in the direction of restoring the funding that has been taken from other accounts. But it doesn't provide all the money necessary for that. We have much more to do in conference.

Senator Burns has done a remarkably good job in trying to fight with those with whom you have to fight to get the resources. We will continue this fight in conference.

The amendments have been cleared on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I concur. The chairman is correct, and I, too, want to help ensure this situation is addressed in conference.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am aware of the Senator's interest in the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center, but did the Senator say that the Center will support national science and math goals?

Let me add to the chairman's remarks that I, too, am interested in investing in programs that support math and science.

So this project would not only help to improve math and science scores for all children but in particular help to assist underserved communities? What other benefits would it provide?

I agree that this sounds like a very worthwhile project. What Federal appropriation would be necessary to begin work on it?

I appreciate this thorough report about the benefits of the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the most pressing health issues facing Native Americans and I am committed to helping advance our research efforts in this field.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for the committee's recognition of the important environmental and energy security benefits of expanding our nation's E85 Infrastructure.

E85 is a form of alternative transportation fuel consisting of 85 percent Ethanol and 15 percent gasoline developed to address America's air quality needs and dependence on foreign oil. Currently, there are over 3 million E85-capable vehicles in the National Vehicle Fleet. The use of E85 in these vehicles has the potential to reduce foreign oil imports by 34 million barrels a year, while adding $3 billion to total farm income and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In the fiscal year 2003 Interior bill, in the committee report for the transportation sector, the committee recommended a $2 million increase in technology deployment for the Clean Cities Program. The report language further recognizes the work being done by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E85 fueling capacity and urges the Department of Energy to give careful consideration to proposals that might be submitted to further this goal. My understanding, is that the Department, consistent with this language, has awarded funds to the NEVC and others for the continued development of E85 Infrastructure and E85 promotion.

On page 69 of the fiscal year 2004 Interior Subcommittee report, under weatherization and intergovernmental activities, it states:

Within the amount provided for clean cities, the department

should continue efforts to expand E85 fueling capacity.

I ask the distinguished Chairman whether I am correct in my understanding that the committee intends that a portion of these funds be used by the Department to continue the existing E85 Infrastructure development initiatives that were funded in fiscal year 2003.

I thank the Chairman.

Air Products and Chemicals

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The order of business now is the Boxer amendment. We have set aside some time for the Senator to speak on the outsourcing amendment.

If the Senator from Washington wants to speak on the Reid amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the present amendment be set aside and the Senator from Washington retain the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to propound. I ask unanimous consent that prior to a series of stacked votes, which will begin at 4:45 p.m., there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740; further, that there be a total of 50 minutes equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Voinovich and Reid amendments on competitive sourcing.

I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 4:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1753, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Voinovich amendment which is to be modified to be a first-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1731; provided, further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Is that agreeable?

Mr. President, thanking my good friend from Wyoming for allowing me to interrupt here, I renew the unanimous consent request with regard to the votes.

I ask unanimous consent that prior to a series of stacked votes, which will begin at 4:45, there will be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740; further, that there be a total of 50 minutes equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Voinovich and Reid amendments on competitive sourcing.

I further ask that at the hour of 4:45, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1753, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Voinovich amendment, which is to be modified to be a first-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1731; provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

I would advise that that is acceptable, that the Enzi statement would be part of that 25 minutes.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the second-degree amendment.

I certainly understand some of Senator Reid's concerns about the competitive sourcing initiative.

For one, most of the agencies funded in this bill failed to budget adequately for the costs of the competitive sourcing studies. As a result, funds that would have been available for other purposes--such as maintenance projects or grazing management--were diverted. Ultimately, I regard this as a failure of the Office of Management and Budget as much as anything.

Yes, competitive sourcing in some cases may result in actual savings. But those savings are likely to be over the long term, and the fact that there may be savings doesn't relieve agencies of the need to budget for the implementation costs up front.

It is for that very reason that we included language in this bill that made further competitive sourcing work by the Forest Service contingent on approval of a detailed reprogramming request. The Forest Service is slated to spend more than any other agency in this bill on this initiative.

But the question before us now is whether to shut down any and all competitive sourcing studies by agencies in this bill. This strikes me as overkill. Has the administration flawlessly implemented its initiative? Certainly not. We have already discussed its failure to adequately budget for the initiative.

I would also note that the administration initially proposed quotas of positions that each agency was to competitively source. I think this was inappropriate. Competitive sourcing makes more sense in some agencies than it does in others. And some agencies have already used forms of competitive sourcing to great advantage. There should be some recognition what these agencies have done previously.

Finally, I know there is much concern among my colleagues on this side of the aisle about the potential impact of competitive sourcing on rural areas. I absolutely understand and share this concern. In such areas the potential loss of a handful of well-paying Government jobs is not a trivial thing. This is particularly true if there is no guarantee that any jobs that are outsourced will remain in the community. I don't think the administration has fully appreciated this fact. But the root of the question raised by this amendment is whether competitive sourcing is, in all cases, a bad thing. The answer is clearly no.

Competitive sourcing experts can cite numerous examples--and they have been cited in the Chamber--of success in the Department of Defense. But even within the Department of the Interior, careful use of outsourcing has resulted in both dollar savings and improved performance. The construction program of the National Park Service is one such example. I have one of those in Great Falls, MT.

Proponents of this amendment can certainly cite examples of poor performance or malfeasance by contractors. Without question, there are cases of this. But we know well enough that there are at least as many instances of

poor performance by Federal employees. This argument simply doesn't fly. Finally, I note that the pending amendment is identical to language included in the House bill. The Statement of Administration Policy states that the President's senior advisers will recommend a veto of the Interior bill if such language is included. While I am not generally one to back down in the face of such a threat, I do think we should consider whether we want to take that trip. Wouldn't it be better to see if we can't go to conference and produce language that further improves the quality of the competitive sourcing initiative, rather than simply throwing what amounts to a legislative tantrum?

I vow to my colleagues that I will work hard with the administration to see that their concerns are addressed. But do we put an absolute stop to a management practice that has been available to agencies in this bill for many years? Or do we instead try to improve the product, and increase congressional oversight of competitive sourcing efforts? I simply find it hard to accept that in all cases competitive sourcing is a bad thing. And I am guessing Federal employees will win more of the competitions than people think if they're well structured. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reid amendment, and to work with me as we go to conference to produce a better solution.

Mr. President, I yield part of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. A long time ago, I wanted to go much further than this. But I think the Senator from New Mexico has hit the nail on the head. So I support it, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1754, As Modified

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are working on the managers' package. It will be done momentarily. Then there is a package that has been agreed to on both sides. Both of those packages have been agreed to so far. There is one more vote tonight, and that is the Daschle amendment regarding Indian Health Service. Then we are also, probably--if no one shows up, why, we would go to final passage on a voice vote, and we could be out of here pretty early, in time to make it home for supper.

As soon as the minority leader comes to the floor, why, we would have the closing arguments on his amendment and our colloquy.

I yield the floor to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. President, we pretty much laid out the facts in this debate. There is no question about the Indian Health Service. I completely agree with my friend from South Dakota.

There are a couple of points I make. If his amendment is successful, it has great ramifications regarding the amount of money going to individual Native Americans, to the tribes, and to trust accounts this year. This transfer of funds shuts down the operation of this historical accounting procedure. This is a problem that has been building for the last 10 or 15 years. In fact, it got so bad under the last administration, the court finally held the Department of Interior in contempt because they were not forthcoming with the figures. Why? Because there was no way to do it. There was no way to present the court with any actual figures to settle the litigation.

The ramifications, if we shut this down: South Dakota alone has 35,714 open accounts. Their annual disbursement to those accounts now under present conditions is over $84 million; Oklahoma, $90 million; my home State, $87 million; $101 million, the State of Washington. That money will not be mailed this year.

On this old reorganization--and we have heard a lot of talk about where is it going, what policy shall we have--the policy is being dictated by the courts. Maybe the policy is we should be on historical accounting so we know accurately what is owed and what is not.

Prior to implementing a major restructuring of the Department's Indian trust functions, Interior engaged in the most extensive consultation in history by senior Department officials with the Indian tribes. Before the new organization was developed, the Department officials held over 45 meetings with tribal leaders throughout the United States, testified at several congressional hearings during the consultation process, and obtained the approval of the House and concurrence of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

What we are talking about is a problem being caused mainly because we stuck our head in the sand and would not face reality when dealing with this. It could be huge. Some plaintiffs say it could go as high as $176 billion. I don't think we are ready to do that just now.

Even if you disagree with the accounting procedure, the Department, regardless of those procedures, the court findings, will be required to implement the court decision should it be made. This amendment will ensure no money is there for implementation.

Now I will focus on IHS for a moment. We have already been down that particular road. We have added money to IHS the last 5 years. We continue to do so. Under the leadership of Senator Domenici and also Senator Daschle of South Dakota and a lot of Members who live in Indian country, we have worked very hard to pump up those accounts, understanding that we have situations on Indian reservations that are characteristic of their problems.

This amendment should not pass. It should not pass. It should allow the process to go forward and settle this problem that has been completely ignored over the past 10 or 15 years.

I hope the Senators will take a look at this. This is the first administration that has stepped up and said we have to do something about it; we have to address it. Not only are we under the cloud of litigation but it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our individuals. It is the right thing to do for our tribal governments, tribes, and for their trust funds. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the exemption he was talking about for Montana, the exemption is the tribes are self-governance tribes. They all have clean audits. They are ready. It is those here in Washington who are not. And we cannot stop the process if we are to be fair to everybody in Indian country.

We have made our points. I am ready to vote if the distinguished minority leader is ready to vote. I know one thing, nobody has greater passion for this issue and for his State than my good friend from South Dakota. But I feel we have kept our head in the sand too long. There has to be some finality to it. We cannot short-circuit the system before it is completed.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we will have our two managers' packages and then final passage. We will have the packages ready in about 5 or 10 minutes. That is the last vote of the evening, I assume. The leader will be here soon. He will make that announcement.

In the meantime, I thank my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for working on this bill because I think we did it in record time this year. We had some issues that had to be dealt with and we dealt with them. We had a good, spirited debate. I thank all Senators for their cooperation on this piece of legislation.

I yield the floor to my friend from North Dakota.

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

Mr. President, we have the first package of amendments. They have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. This is in package No. 1, for identification for my good friend from North Dakota. There are two other packages to come, and we are working on those.

Amendment Nos. 1757; 1758; 1752, As Modified; 1759; 1760; 1761; 1762;

1728, As Modified; 1763, 1726, 1764, 1765, and 1766, En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments in package No. 1 be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which has been agreed to by both sides. This happens to be an amendment that covers almost the core of the debate during this piece of legislation. This has moneys which replace the moneys that were borrowed from all the funds to fight fires.

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides for $400 million under consequential emergency conditions. It is not offset. We want to thank the administration and the folks down at OMB. We have been working very hard with them. As this moves, we are asking that the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior get out their pencils and give us the number. This number could go up slightly. It could go down by the time the conference is over because that is where it will be settled.

I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, you do not do anything by yourself. They say you always like to be like a turtle; a turtle never gets anywhere unless he sticks his neck out. Some folks are proud of that. But if you find one on the top of a fence post, he did not get there by himself.

I appreciate the support we have had from Senator Dorgan and his side of the aisle. It is something that needed doing. We are getting a different fire nowadays. It has a different characteristic. It is hotter and more damaging. We have to deal with it and we have to pay for it.

It is the people's land. It is the people's timber. It is the people's place where they recreate, hunt, and fish. There is a lumber industry that depends on the forest lands. This is a vital resource for this country.

Amendments Nos. 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1725 as Modified, 1777, 1737, 1732 as Modified, 1778, 1779, 1743 as Modified,

1733, 1780, 1749, 1781 and 1782, En Bloc

I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk the managers' amendments to this bill and ask for their immediate consideration.

I thank the Senator from Maine for her comments and do pledge to help find funds in conference for the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership. The Senator from Maine has been a tireless advocate for this worthy project, and I know that she has suggested that it receive funds from the Forest Service's National Forest System account, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource Management account. I will use my best efforts to consider funding the Downeast Lakes project as the Senator suggests.

Mr. President, I would respond that, yes, the subcommittee is aware of the problem affecting the Landsat 7 satellite, and we are willing to work with USGS and our friend from South Dakota to address this situation in conference.

Yes, I can assure the leader that I am very aware of the physical problems that are now plaguing our National Zoo, and I commit to him that I will work in conference to help address the funding needs of that institution to help maintain its accreditation. I agree that our National Zoo is a symbol of this Capitol City, and more importantly of this country, and we must not let it lose that accreditation.

Little Rock Audubon Nature Center

I am aware of the serious problem regarding the decline in our children's math and science scores and I am intrigued by the idea that we might address this problem through nature education.

Yes, I thank the Senators for the clarification. There is more to this project than suggested by its name and I hope that we might give your request every possible consideration.

I am glad to discuss this with my colleague.

I understand the Senator's concerns about the ITM Oxygen program. For this reason I included language in the Committee Report encouraging the Department of Energy to fund ITM Oxygen at a level higher than identified in the budget request in order to keep the program on track for completion. I hope the Department heeds this report language and responds appropriately to avoid unnecessary program costs for the completion of the project.

In drafting the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, my staff and I consulted with the Department of Energy to ensure the amount provided in the bill would fully support the fiscal year needs of the ITM syngas membrane technology the Senator just described.

I appreciate my colleague's interest in the fetal alcohol syndrome research being conducted by the Indian Health Service and the University of Washington. I look forward to working with my colleague on the continued funding for these research efforts.

I appreciate that my colleague, Senator Bingaman, is willing to forego offering his amendment and that he will work with me to address the issue of funding the USGS to conduct the binational groundwater study. I think this is a worthy program, and I will work closely with my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives to attempt to fully fund the border health initiative at the House level and to specify that the increased funding above the Senate mark, $500,000, be used to initiate the groundwater study consistent with Senator Bingaman's suggestion.

That is my understanding.

I understand your concerns about the ITM Oxygen program. For this reason I included language in the committee report encouraging the Department of Energy to fund ITM Oxygen at a level higher than identified in the budget request in order to keep the program on track for completion. I hope the Department heeds this report language and responds appropriately to avoid unnecessary program costs for the completion of the project.

In drafting the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, my staff and I consulted with the Department of Energy to ensure the amount provided in the bill would fully support the fiscal year needs of the ITM syngas membrane technology you just described.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

When my Subcomittee on Interior Appropriations reviewed your request for $3.4 million for the Wind River Irrigation Project, there was some question as to whether or not the BIA is ``legally obligated'' to maintain this system. Has the Senator been able to find out what the BIA's responsibilities are?

Senator, we included language in the Interior Subcommittee Report that required the BIA, if legally responsible, to formulate a plan to address the rehabilitation cost no later than 120 days after the Interior Appropriations bill is enacted. Do you believe the BIA has clarified its legal obligation?

Mr. President, I will wait for the floor manager here.

I am sorry, Mr. President, how much time is there?

Thank you very much, I say to the Senator from Montana.

It is interesting to be talking about this issue. The fact is, I suspect all of us are looking for the most efficient way to operate the Government. I guess that is what we spend a lot of time doing. We spend a lot of time looking for ways to make it less costly to get the job done. We spend a lot of time providing opportunities for small businesses. These are the very things that are involved here. Yet we seem to be trying to keep that from happening. It is a bit of a surprise.

Competitive sourcing seeks to streamline Federal agencies. This has been going on, by the way, for a long time. In 1996 we passed the FAIR Act and began to do something with it. There were different kinds of reactions to it. There were some efforts made in the Clinton administration that did not go very far to utilize this.

Then 2 years ago we started to revamp the thing a little bit and make it work. That is what this administration has done--to make the Government more accountable to the taxpayers, to reduce the Government's direct competition in the private sector. These are the purposes of this competitive sourcing.

The President's competitive sourcing initiative is designed to improve performance and efficiency. That is really the bottom line. When the Government competes with the private sector, we erode the local tax base, we drive up prices, decrease performance of Federal agencies because there is no competition, and we know that is a key to our whole effort within the sector.

Regarding cost savings, both the General Accounting Office and the Center for Naval Analysis, two independent groups, have found through extensive research that competitive sourcing reduces costs by 30 percent--regardless of who wins. Keep in mind, this is competitive sourcing. When this particular job or this particular task is set up for competitive sourcing, the Federal employees have a chance to compete for it as well as the outside. In most cases, over half the cases in the past, Federal employees have won.

Nevertheless, because of that, because of looking for ways to do it more efficiently, there has been a 30-percent reduction in costs. So the Government can save billions of dollars by allowing the private/ public competition to occur. Stopping this competition only wastes taxpayer dollars, increases the inefficiency of a Government monopoly, and prevents us from improving upon services the taxpayers receive.

One of the troublesome things has been that the image of that kind of action has not often been clear. I have here an article by Fran Mainella, who is the Director of the National Park Service.

Over the past several months, a number of media reports

have mischaracterized the scope, purpose and effects of the

National Park Service competitive sourcing efforts.

She goes on:

Our competitive sourcing initiative challenges us to put

our finger on our own pulse. It provides a framework by which

we examine whether we have the right skills, the right

techniques, organizational structures to provide Americans

the best possible service--service that is effective and

efficient.

So we have had a great deal of success in doing that. Actually, the competitive sourcing idea is not a new one. It has been talked about for a good long time. In fact, I point out here--this is a statement made in 1996 by the unions publicly supporting competition. It says:

Over the years, the OMB Circular A-76 competitive process

has benefited taxpayers with billions of dollars in savings.

I am proud of the fact that these competitions have shown

Federal workers to be just as competitive as their private-

sector counterparts in terms of their cost, efficiency and

overall quality of performance.

Mr. Chairman, you have often heard me say that Federal

employees are not afraid of competition. If we cannot provide

the services better, faster and cheaper than our private-

sector competition, then we do not deserve to perform the

work in the first place. We ask you and the members of this

committee not to deny us the opportunity and dignity of

competing.

This is the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. This is, of course, some time back.

So what we are dealing with here, of course, is an amendment that prevents the improvement of the Department of the Interior's commercial activity competitive sourcing. This is something we have dealt with for a good amount of time.

We talked about the Printing Office and the money that has been saved there. We talk a lot about parks. Of course, I come from a State with parks, such as the Grand Tetons.

There is an idea that we are going to replace the park rangers. That isn't true at all. This has nothing to do with park rangers and people who have those kinds of professional jobs. We are talking about people who do maintenance work and people who do other kinds of activities. That is the case.

We agree parks are special. It is one of the things we hear about a great deal. We hear about it incorrectly from time to time. That, I guess, is what is happening here.

Secretary Norton noted that 2,500 positions have been reviewed under competitive sourcing since 2001. Not one full-time Federal employee has been involuntarily separated. These are things that change. We have a great deal of retirement coming up, and there will be some opportunity to do

some things here that will give us a chance to make our Federal Government more effective and more efficient.

Over the past several years it has been our Government policy not to compete with the private sector. However, the Federal Government currently has about 416,000 positions that are characterized as commercial in nature. Seeing that Congress has done a poor job with sourcing policy, President Bush initiated competitive sourcing to improve the way it functions. We are now in the process of seeing that improvement take place.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always concerned about economic developments. They should support this opportunity to improve competitive sourcing. Keep in mind that Government competition in the private sector erodes the local tax base and creates a Government monopoly.

Here we are. I think we have an opportunity to continue to strengthen that. The amendment before us is certainly not one that helps that. It precludes going forward with this very useful thing. The amendment we will be voting on is a first second-degree amendment.

This reporting requirement addresses a number of the concerns many Senators had about competitive sourcing. This second-degree amendment does the following:

It requires the Secretary of the Interior to report annually on its competitive sourcing efforts, including listing the total number of competitions completed; list the total number of competitions announced; the activity covering the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees studied under the completed competitions; total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees being studied but not completed; the incremental costs directly attributable to conducting the competition, including costs attributable to paying outside consultants; estimate of the total and completed savings; description of the improvements in services and performance derived from the competition actually reported; and total number of full-time equivalent employees covered by competition rescheduling for next fiscal year.

That is the kind of reporting we will have.

We have a number of letters. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Here is one in behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favoring the competitive sourcing and opposing the amendment.

Here is the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which opposes the amendment.

Citizens Against Government Waste is also in support of this.

American Council of Engineering Companies, the National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Tax Reform--all of these are in strong support of continuing to give the private sector an opportunity in these areas.

I also finally would like to tell you there is a statement of administration policy here in which the administration indicates they will veto a bill that includes this kind of program. They say the administration understands the amendment will be offered on the Senate floor which would effectively shut down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative to fundamentally improve the performance of government in many commercial activities. The administration seeks to improve performance of Government services based on the comprehensive principle of competition, a proven way of protecting taxpayer dollars while providing better services and performance. Now is the wrong time to short circuit the implementation of this principle, especially since numerous agencies are starting to make real progress in providing public/private competition. If the final version of the bill contains such a provision, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

I urge we get support for this amendment so we can continue the competitive notion.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I will take just a portion of that. I think we have covered this issue fairly well. I would like to comment on a couple things that were said on the other side of the aisle. The Senator said we are going to contract everything out. That is part of the problem here, making statements like that which are absolutely untrue. It makes it kind of tough to understand what is going on. No one is talking about contracting everything out. No one is even talking about privatizing. We are talking about competitive competition. So I think we ought to be just a little more careful about that.

This idea that this is being done entirely by the executive branch, remember, we passed a law in 1998 called the FAIR Act. You know what that was. It authorized what we are doing here now. Circular A-76 has been on the books from Congress since 1976. Congress passed that. Surprising as it may seem, a lot of people in Congress think the private sector is a good thing, that it does a pretty good job. That is kind of what this country is about, the private sector. This idea that somehow you hire people and take away all their benefits--the Service Acquisition Act, passed by Congress, ensures that health benefits and pay are not reduced in Government contracts to the private sector. Those are things that are done there.

We are not talking about contracting everything. Here are the positions being evaluated to give you some idea. From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National Park Service, maintenance vehicles, lawns, bathrooms, air-conditioners--is that going to change the emotions in the park? I don't think so--Bureau of Reclamation, Job Corps centers; Bureau of Land Management, maintenance vehicles, bathrooms, air-conditioners, geographic information services. These are the kinds of jobs that are done all the time in the private sector, the professionals, many of them in the private sector.

It is too bad we continue to say some of these things that just aren't the case. I hope we continue to provide, as the Congress has said, an opportunity to have competition for some of the activities within Government, and those that can be done better in the private sector can be done. Those savings then will go to offset some of the backlog of the Park Service that has existed without any competition. This is kind of where we are.

I certainly encourage my fellow Senators to support our second-degree amendment when it comes to the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment that is before us. I was concerned when I first talked to the Senator about it. I was concerned that it would be difficult to differentiate between commercial signs, advertising, on the one hand, and sponsors, for instance, the Race for the Cure, on the other. However, we talked together about that. We talked with the Park Service about that, and I believe the wording of the amendment is such that that kind of emotion, that kind of recognition of the sponsors for voluntary events would be allowable.

I am chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee and we deal with The Mall, and we have had several hearings and considerable consideration about what we do on The Mall and how many buildings there are and how it is used. So I think it is important to set standards for the use of something that is very unique and in the national interest.

I think the Senator has a worthwhile amendment, and I support it.

Madam President, this second-degree amendment on which we will be voting, the reporting requirement, addresses a number of concerns various Senators have had with competitive sourcing.

The second-degree amendment does the following: It requires the Secretary of the Interior to annually report on its competitive sourcing efforts--including a list of the total number of competitions completed, a list of the total number of competitions announced and the activities covered, and a list of the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees studied under completed competitions.

The second-degree amendment is a responsible measure that will bring additional accountability and transparency to public-private competitions.

Two weeks ago, the House overwhelmingly adopted a similar reporting requirement during consideration of the Treasury/Transportation appropriations bill.

The Thomas-Voinovich amendment will give Congress additional oversight of competitive sourcing, unlike the Reid amendment that stops it altogether. Competitive sourcing allows tax dollars to be used more efficiently, more effectively. It will improve agency efficiency. I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment.

Would my fellow Senator from Wyoming yield?

It is also my understanding that the BIA assessed the need for repairs on several occasions, including a 1968 Completion Report that found 74 percent of the irrigation structures and 61 percent of the canals needed serious rehabilitation at a cost of $6.6 million in 1968 dollars or approximately $26.0 million in 1993 dollars.

Furthermore, since the BIA's 1968 Completion Report, several additional studies have been conducted, specifically one in 1988 which indicates that $50 million would be needed to completely rehabilitate the Wind River Irrigation system. The most recent study completed in 1994 cited that over 60 percent, or 1200 structures need repair or replacement, and 45 percent, or 190 miles of canals and laterals need repair or reconstruction. Due to the Project's current configuration, it has only 66 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal. In comparison, Midvale Irrigation District, which lies adjacent to the Wind River Reservation, has over 160 acres per mile of canal.

My colleague is exactly right. This situation has resulted in a critical shortage of financial resources to maintain Project facilities, causing less efficient use of water, progressively deteriorating crop quality, and an increase in the proportion of income water users' pay in fee assessments.

This lack of resources should not continue in the Wind River Basin, or catastrophic events like major floods from dam failure and/or severe droughts could occur. The Wind River Irrigation Project needs rehabilitation. The water users in the area--folks who have been hit hard by region's drought--cannot continue to operate their ranches and farms without addressing the root of the problem. The Wind River Irrigation Project is the source of water problems on the Reservation. It affects Indians and non-Indians, and it is recognized by the State of Wyoming as the most critical agricultural and economic issue facing residents on and near the Reservation.

My colleague is correct. I would also like to add that during Wyoming's last legislative session, the Wyoming legislature and the Wyoming Water Development Commission worked closely with the Wind River Tribes to develop and pass legislation that will enable the Tribes to act as sponsors of water development projects through the Wyoming Water Development Program. According to the Director of the Wyoming Water Commission, funding for the Wyoming Water Development Program is appropriated annually by the legislature for specific projects, like rehabilitating certain parts of the Wind River Irrigation Project. Unfortunately, the State does not have the financial means or the desire to fund a federally owned and operated system by itself. However, this cooperation highlights that Federal dollars spent on the Wind River Irrigation Project would go a long way towards not only its rehabilitation, but would also encourage the State of Wyoming to become more involved in addressing the water needs of that area.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1750 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This amendment establishes a cost-effective program to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand it has been cleared by both of the managers.

Since late 2001 the Department of Energy--DOE--has been steadily adding oil to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in order to fill the reserve to its maximum capacity of 700 million barrels. In late 2001, the reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil; today holds nearly 620 million barrels. DOE anticipates that at the current fill rate it will reach its goal of 700 million barrels sometime in 2005.

Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without regard to the price of oil. Prior to that time, DOE sought to acquire more oil when the price of oil was low, and less oil when the price of oil was high. In early 2002, however, DOE abandoned this cost-based approach and instead adopted the current approach, which does not consider cost when buying oil for the SPR. Since over this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight, this cost-blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer and, of great significance, put further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses.

The bipartisan amendment Senator Collins and I are offering today is simple. It would encourage DOE to consider the price and supply of oil when buying oil for the SPR. It would direct DOE to minimize the program's cost to the taxpayer while maximizing our energy security.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations spend a year and a half looking at oil markets and the SPR. In March of this year my staff on the subcommittee published the repot of the investigation. In summary our investigation found:

In 2002, DOE began to fill the SPR without regard to the

price of oil.

Filling the SPR in tight market increased U.S. oil prices

and hurt U.S. consumers.

Filling the SPR regardless of oil prices increased taxpayer

costs.

Despite its high cost, filling the SPR [in 2002] did not

increase overall U.S. oil supplies.

The March report also warned that the deliveries that were then scheduled for later in 2003 would drive oil prices higher because prices were high and inventories were low. Unfortunately, this prediction turned out to be accurate.

Our Report recommended:

DOE should defer all SPR deliveries . . . until near-term

crude oil prices fall and U.S. commercial inventories

increase.

DOE should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the previous

SPR fill policy compared to the current policy.

DOE should restore its SPR business procedures allowing

deferrals of oil deliveries to the SPR when crude oil prices

are high or commercial crude oil supplies are tight.

Both Houses of Congress support the goal of filling the SPR to its capacity. I support this goal, too. This amendment seeks to further this goal and our national energy security at least cost to the taxpayers. For many years the SPR program followed the types of procedures that DOE has recently abandoned. The SPR program office itself has recommended the DOE return to using these market-based procedures. Under the amendment DOE would continue to have the discretion to determine when to buy oil for the SPR, and under which procedures, but DOE would be encouraged to use that discretion in a way to minimize costs while maximizing national energy security.

Any successful businessperson knows the saying, ``Buy low, sell high.'' This is as true for oil as it is for pork bellies and stocks. It is as true for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as it is for any business involving a commodity. Indeed, in a recent presentation to other countries on how to create and manage a strategic reserve, DOE itself states: ``The Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost Control.'' DOE identifies the major cost elements of a strategic reserve as capital costs, maintenance costs, and oil acquisition costs. Once constructed, the capital costs and the maintenance costs are largely fixed. The main variable cost, therefore, is the cost of acquiring oil

for the SPR. DOE itself identifies for other countries the ``Lessons Learned to Control Oil Acquisition Costs'' as follows:

Let the markets determine your buying pattern.

Buy in weak markets.

Delay deliveries during strong markets.

Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.

Prior to early 2002 DOE followed this sensible strategy when acquiring oil for the SPR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this DOE presentation to other countries be entered into the record.

Part of this strategy--allowing deliveries to be deferred when prices were high and supplies tight--was spelled out in the ``Business Procedures'' for the SPR program issued by DOE in January 2002. The Business Procedures spell out how scheduled deliveries of oil to the SPR can be deferred. Generally, companies will ask for a deferral when the market is tight so they can meet their supply commitments to refiners who have an immediate need for the oil. DOE's procedures provided that a company could be granted a deferral in return for additional barrels of oil to be delivered at the later date. DOE calculated the amount of additional oil that would be delivered by comparing the market prices at the time of delivery was originally scheduled and at the time of the deferred delivery.

DOE's own documents state that deferrals of oil scheduled to be delivered in 2001 provided an additional 3\1/2\ million barrels of oil for the SPR at no additional cost to the Government. Deferrals of deliveries scheduled for 1999 and 2000 had added another 3\1/2\ million barrels. At an average cost of $25 per barrel, these deferrals added a total of 7 million barrels of oil to the Reserve, worth about $175 million, for no cost to the taxpayer. The SPR program projected:

The potential for savings to the Treasury if we continue to

follow this business model until the Reserve is full is

additional hundreds of millions of dollars.

But in April 2002, DOE stopped allowing deferrals of scheduled deliveries. Instead, DOE began to buy oil for the SPR without regard to the cost of oil or the supply of oil, and refused requests for deferrals. DOE has not explained the reason for abandoning its previous policy.

In addition to losing the benefits from deferrals, both in terms of oil gained and dollars saved, the abandonment of the previous policy is costing taxpayers because DOE has been paying top dollar for the oil placed into the SPR. Oil acquired for the SPR at $35 per barrel costs the taxpayers $10 more per barrel than oil acquired at $25 per barrel. Even more modest savings per barrel add up to large savings over the course of the program. In 2002, DOE's SPR program calculated:

If the SPR can average down the price of oil it injects in

the Reserve by $1 per barrel between now and 2005, the U.S.

Treasury will be better off by $125 million, a direct

benefit.

But in these times of high gas prices, the DOE shift has another highly negative effect.

Filling up the SPR affects the price of oil and gasoline. In a tight market, filling the SPR reduces the amount of oil in private sector inventories, which, because it reduces available supply, will then lead to increases in the price of oil and petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and home heating oil. When prices are high and the market is tight, refiners will use up the oil in their inventories rather than purchase new oil in an expensive market, and wait for prices to fall before buying more oil. In a tight market, therefore, the additional demand for oil created by the SPR program will lead companies to take even more oil out of their own inventories to fill Government needs. In a tight market, the net result of the SPR program will not be any overall increase in domestic oil supplies, since the amounts of oil added to the SPR will come at the expense of oil in private sector inventories. These private commercial inventories are thereby reduced as a result of filling the SPR.

Oil prices are directly related to the supply of oil. When supplies are plentiful, prices fall. When supplies are scarce, prices rise. The supply of oil is determined by the amount of oil produced in oil wells around the world and the amount of oil in storage. As either the amount of oil produced or the amount of oil in storage decreases, prices will increase. In a tight market, therefore, when supplies are scarce, filling the SPR will lead both to a decrease in private sector inventories and a corresponding increase in the price of oil.

The Department of Energy's own documents explain this effect as follows:

If we look at the SPR from the perspective of daily supply

and demand, the SPR fill rates are inconsequential. The fill

rate is 100-170,000 barrels per day compared to world

production and consumption of 75 million barrels per day.

However, when OPEC countries are determined to maintain

discipline in their export quotas, the cumulative impact of

filling the SPR becomes more significant when compared to

U.S. and Atlantic basin inventories. Essentially, if the SPR

inventory grows, the OPEC does not accommodate that growth by

exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of

commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices

are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20

million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially

increase prices.

Oil companies doing business with the SPR program supported DOE's business procedures in place prior to the spring of last year. These procedures afforded the contractors the flexibility to re-schedule deliveries to the SPR in accordance with market conditions. In exchange for providing the oil companies with this flexibility, the U.S. government was able to obtain additional barrels of oil for the SPR at no additional cost to the taxpayer. This enabled the Reserve to be filled faster and at less cost than if contractors were not allowed to reschedule their deliveries. These procedures were a win-win for taxpayers and the SPR.

And, of course, any increase in the price of oil will soon lead to an increase in the price of the various petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, and jet fuel. Hence, the SPR program affects price of basic oil products for a wide variety of American consumers and businesses.

The amendment I am offering today would encourage DOE to reinstate these ``win-win'' procedures for filling the SPR.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent editorial critical of DOE's cost-blind approach to filling the

The editorial, in the Omaha World Herald, dated August 14, reads:

In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the

nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in

case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing

as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making

a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11

million barrels since the start of May. Commercial U.S. oil

stocks have been low for months. Filling the reserve just now

puts upward pressure on prices. . . . Washington should back

off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is

costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists

during summer vacation driving time.

Under our amendment DOE would retain the complete discretion to determine the pace and schedule for filling the SPR. However, DOE would be required to issue procedures to guide this discretion, and would be required to consider how to maximize our national energy security and minimize costs to the taxpayers while filling the SPR. If implemented properly, such procedures can promote our national energy security, save taxpayers money, and lower oil and gasoline prices for consumers.

Exhibit 1

Proceedings of APEC Energy Security Initiative Workshop on Elements of

Energy Security Policy in the Context of Petroleum, Amari Watergate

Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, September 14-15, 2001

asia-pacific economic cooperation, energy working group, clean fossil

energy experts' group

Jointly Organized by: Department of Industry, Science and

Resource (ISR), Australia; The Institute of Energy Economics,

Japan (IEEJ), Japan; Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy

(MOCIE), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Energy, Mexico;

National Energy Policy Office (NEPO), Thailand; and

Department of Energy (DOE), United States.

Supported by: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan

strategic petroleum reserve

APEC Workshop on Energy Security Policy: John Shages.

united states policy on responding to oil supply disruptions

The policy of the United States regarding oil supply

disruptions is to rely on market forces to allocate supply,

and to ordinarily supplement supply by the early drawdown of

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in large volumes and in

coordination with our allies and trading partners.

critical elements to justify a drawdown

A Disruption Event.

Evidence of Supply Stress.

A Price Spike.

the key to a successful strategic reserve is cost control

The benefits come with a drawdown--but the number and

extent of futures disruptions is unknown.

Measuring the degree of damage from a disruption, and the

consequent benefits of a petroleum reserve, to an individual

economy is an uncertain science.

Cost is the easiest aspect to control and has the highest

probability of making the Reserve cost beneficial.

major cost elements

Capital Costs--Including land, facilities, and logistics

systems.

Maintenance Costs.

Oil Acquisition Costs.

capital costs

Dependent on location.

Technology and type of storage facilities.

Refer to the 1999 APERC Study supported by conceptual

designs and cost estimates from PBKBB, Inc.

lessons learned to control oil acquisition costs

Let the markets determine your buying pattern.

Buy in weak markets.

Delay deliveries during strong markets.

Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.

Exhibit 2

[From the Omaha World Herald, Aug. 14, 2003]

Oil's Not Well--Filling the Strategic Reserve Is a Good Idea--But Not

Right Now.

In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the

nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in

case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing

as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making

a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11

million barrels since the start of May.

Commercial U.S. oil stocks have been low for months.

Filling the reserve just now puts upwards pressure on prices.

Every motorists sees this at the gasoline pump, where

regular-grade gas is hovering around $1.60.

Oil has again begun to flow from Iraq's vast fields, which

will help somewhat--weeks from now. Meanwhile, the strategic

reserve is at 84 percent of capacity. This seems to us a

comfortable level.

Washington should back off until oil prices fall somewhat.

Doing otherwise is costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is

punishing motorists during summer vacation driving time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.