A bill to amend title XVI of the Social Security Act to clarify that the value of certain funeral and burial arrangements are not to be considered available resources under the supplemental security income program.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the distribution of judgment funds to eligible tribal members of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Identical legislation unanimously passed the Senate last year, but was not able to be considered by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress.

The Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect the community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the community, and recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be 7 million.

So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not disappear. The judgment award has since been transferred from the Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the community, managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of the Interior.

This judgment award was certified by the Treasury Department on October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time, the community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As outlined in its plan, the community has decided to distribute the judgment award equally to eligible tribal members.

The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.

Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter. After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and provide compensation as soon as possible. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to move this legislation through the process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. This legislation is identical to legislation which passed the Senate unanimously in September of last year.

The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.

The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to build a consensus amoung fractious and even hostile interests. The Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.

The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts across 30 states.

Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest.

The Institution also assisted in facilitating interagency temawork for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even members of Congress have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative processes.

The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 states. We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is working.

The demand on the Institute's assistance had been much greater than anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long- term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.

Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.

In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional five years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by preventing costly litigation.

I hope that we can consider this legislation expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing inspiration to those most oppressed in our society. He is an exemplary American hero. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and other States that are significant to his life.

Cesar Chavez, a fellow Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his family's Hispanic heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend distinctions of experience, and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender to worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which latter became the United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. . .our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

I introduced this legislation last October and received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my constituents in Arizona, but from Americans all across the nation. Similar legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001. The bill specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for these sites to become historic landmarks.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero who

embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proposing bipartisan legislation to provide the basis for reform of the administration and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I am pleased that my two colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson, are once again joining me in this effort.

Last year, we introduced a similar bill to serve as a legislative vehicle in the event a consensus agreement could be reached during an extensive dialogue between a designated tribal task force and the U.S. Department of Interior on administrative and legislative reforms to federal management of trust funds and assets. Unfortunately, the dialogue resulted in a stalemate. While we received many favorable comments to move forward with this legislation, and conducted a full committee hearing to consider it, a sufficient consensus did not exist to approve the legislation prior to the adjournment of the 107th session.

We are reintroducing this legislation again because we believe it is important to continue to offer a legislative remedy to the management problems plaguing the Interior Department and instill a meaningful role for Indian tribes in the process. Indian trust funds management continues to be mired in controversy and systemic mismanagement. Native American beneficiaries

continue to be denied a full reconciliation of money rightfully belonging to them.

The history of Indian trust funds management is long, exhaustive and fraught with controversy. It is a problem inherited by successive Administrations yet only limited progress has been made. The major structural changes called for in the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act have not been accomplished. Two Special Trustees have resigned in frustration and high-level government officials have twice been held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for breach of fiduciary duties.

No one is more frustrated about the lack of resolution to these long- standing problems than the Native American beneficiaries. However, recent reorganization plans submitted to the Court by the Interior Department earlier this month have only raised more controversy and concern among Indian tribes and beneficiaries as to the extent the Department will fully account for lost and mismanaged trust accounts. Significant questions have also been raised as to the impact of these proposed plans on long-standing Federal policies of self-determination and the function of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I cannot speak as to the merits of the Department's recent plans. The fact is, many in the Congress were not notified of the Department's intended actions nor has there been an opportunity to evaluate these plans through the respective legislative committees of jurisdiction. I have sought a commitment from the incoming Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to hold hearings as soon as possible on recent Department proposals that will restructure trust funds management as well as to consider legislative proposals such as the one we're proposing today.

The purpose of this legislation we are introducing is simple. It focuses on two primary changes to the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, the underlying law governing Indian trust funds management. First, it creates a single line-of-authority in the Interior Department by establishing a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform; and second, the bill strengthens provisions for Indian tribes and beneficiaries to directly manage or co-manage with the Interior secretary trust funds and assets, based on successful self-determination policies.

A fundamental objective of this legislation is to raise the profile of Indian trust funds management within the Interior Department and provide a statutory basis for Indian tribes to assume a greater management role in future management of their trust funds and trust assets. The structure of this legislation is similar to the bill introduced last year, but it is modified to reflect comments received from Indian tribes.

The legislation affirms the fiduciary standards to be applied to the management of Indian trust funds and assets. The Office of Special Trustee is abolished and replaced with the Office of Trust Reform under the direction of a new Deputy Secretary. The existing Advisory Committee to the Special Trustee is replaced with a Task Force composed of representatives of the tribes and the Department who will work with the new Deputy Secretary to develop appropriate standards and further necessary changes.

Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson and I introduce this legislation as a demonstration of our continuing commitment to seek a real and meaningful trust reform solution that provides an active role for tribal participation and consultation. We hope this legislation will prompt the necessary dialogue to ensure reform to Indian trust funds and trust assets management in a way that increases accountability of the Interior Department and respects the fact that the tribes must be involved as active participants without the threat of termination of the trust responsibility.

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

Mr. President, today I join Senators Boxer, Chafee, and others to introduce The Toxic Clean Up and Polluter Pays Renewal Act for. For more than 20 years, the polluter pays principle has been a cornerstone of environmental policy. The Superfund toxic waste cleanup program, based on that principle, has made it possible to clean up hundreds of toxic waste dumps across the country, and has led to better management of industrial pollution and waste.

The polluter pays principle is now under attack. Last year, the Bush administration announced that it would not seek reauthorization of the taxes levied on oil and chemical companies that go into the Superfund trust fund, which is used to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites.

The Superfund program established three ways to pay for the cost of cleanups: 1) the company or individual responsible for creating the site pays for its cleanup; 2) the Environmental Protection Agency performs the cleanups and recoups the costs from the responsible party or parties; and 3) for those ``orphan'' sites where no responsible party can be found, or the party is insolvent or no longer in business, the cleanup is paid for out of the trust fund.

The Superfund trust fund was created primarily with revenue from a corporate environmental income tax and excise taxes on petroleum and certain chemicals. The trust fund received about $1.5 billion per year before the legislative authority to collect the taxes expired at the end of 1995. The trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2004, having dwindled from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996 to $28 million this year.

There are 1,234 sites on the EPA national priority list of toxic waste sites that need to be cleaned up. One in four Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites contain hazardous pollutants like arsenic, cyanide, and agent orange. Last year, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman told Congress that 75 sites on the national priority list would be cleaned up in 2001 and 65 sites would be cleaned up in 2002. The Bush administration then revised its plan, requiring that only 47 site cleanups be completed in 2001 and 42 in 2002. For 2003, the Bush administration has proposed to further decrease cleanups. On October 25, 2002, the EPA Inspector General found that the Bush administration has cut funding at 55 Superfund sites in 25 states for which regional officials had requested cleanup. For Fiscal Year 2002, EPA regional officials requested $510 million to clean up waste sites. In response, EPA headquarters obligated only $280 million, resulting in a shortfall of $229 million, or 45 percent.

The program is insufficiently funded to allow sites that are already scheduled to be cleaned up to move forward. This results in increased risks to human health and the environment and increased cleanup costs in the long term. Reinstating the Superfund fee would restore a source of funding to the program at a time when the backlog of sites requires more resources if the program is to be successful. The Bush administration is the first administration since Superfund was enacted in 1980 to oppose reinstating this tax on polluters--a policy that either halts cleanup efforts or shifts the cost to rank-and-file taxpayers. Either result is unacceptable.

The administration's plan to cut the Superfund program would seriously compromise the health of our communities and amount to an enormous windfall for the oil and chemical industries. Funding is the key to cleaning up these sites and protecting communities from harm. The ``polluter pays'' principle has worked well over the last two decades, and the financial burden should not be shifted from polluters to average taxpayers. The administration should change course and find ways to restore the ``polluter pays'' principle to the program and aggressively fund cleanups at contaminated sites.

Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in reintroducing legislation that will focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of mismanagement of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians.

This is a problem that has festered for far too long outside the spotlight of public recognition. And it is a problem that is undermining urgently needed efforts to improve the quality of life in Indian Country.

Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management.

For over a hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians.

To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts.

How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell v. Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian Country. It is foolhardly not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this lawsuit.

There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question has always been how to reform it.

In November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled her controversial plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and segregate the oversight and accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the U.S. District Court, the Secretary acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly do have some missing data, and we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some information no longer exists.''

The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal, a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court, was presented with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account holders, not to mention Congress.

In South Dakota, tribal leaders communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary's solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without further consultation with the tribes. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary on Indian Affairs, despite their reorganization plan, were both subsequently found in contempt of court.

In the early months of 2002, in the face of Administration assurances that its reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan administratively. Notwithstanding this clear signal, just this last December, while most members of Congress were out of town and with very little fanfare, the Secretary submitted yet another smaller request to reprogram BIA funds for trust fund reform activities.

Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson and I feel that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussion of what role Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our hope that this bill will promote more constructive dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department and Indian Country on this problem and lead to a true consensus solution.

With that goal in mind, the bill was received by representatives of the Great Plains tribes last Congress at a recent meeting in Rapid City. And earlier today, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association urged me to re-introduce this legislation in the new Congress.

Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and member of the Secretary's Trust Reform Task Force, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. He and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association President Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Mike and Tom have also worked with tribal leaders from Montana and Wyoming to raise awareness of the stakes of this issue and build support for the bill that regrettably died at the end of the 107th Congress due to Administration opposition.

I commend the willingness of these participating Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regional tribal leaders to be part of a public process that will hopefully will not stop until Indian Country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-Johnson- Daschle bill is intended to contribute to this result.

At this point, I would like to remind my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised in the last Congress by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions that are still relevant in the 108th Congress. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill moves through the committee process.

The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association:

1. Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. They do not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and unified authority needed;

2. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes;

3. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary;

4. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereignty by interfering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both;

5. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affairs' role as an advocate for tribe;

6. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment;

7. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation;

8. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation;

9. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding to allow reform to succeed;

10. Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and

11. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resource managers, from various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform.

The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some will intentioned and some

clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities.

These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes.

I would be remiss if I did not commend this Administration for taking the time to travel to Indian Country to discuss this problem. Their interest in promoting dialogue with tribal leaders was welcome and appreciated. At the same time, however, talk must be supported by action if the trust management problem is to be successfully resolved.

The recent unveiling last month of the Department of the Interior's attempt to implement a trust reorganization plan without full tribal or congressional consultation in response to the Cobell v. Norton case was appalling and an egregious act by the federal government to Indian stakeholders. One tribal task force member described Interior's latest deceptive actions as ``a sham.'' That sentiment is widespread in Indian Country and exacerbates an underlying frustration and disappointment that is both understandable and disconcerting.

I share this frustration and disappointment. And I am concerned that the progress made jointly last year could be wasted away by a rising tide of disillusionment and mounting sense of betrayal.

The message I have heard from tribal leaders is clear. What is needed to achieve true reform are clear trust standards, one clear line of authority for trust management and the resources necessary to achieve meaningful reform, respect for self-determination, and meaningful consultation.

Meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status is the critical starting point if we hope to find a workable solution to the very real problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson and I are introducing today reflects this conviction.

There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the principles of self- determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets.

I am disappointed that this problem was not solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders in the last Congress. Yet, that fight is not over, and my commitment to my South Dakota tribal constituents and Indian Country on this important issue has not diminished.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership introduced its priority bills for the 108th Congress. I am proud that trust reform is included as part of our civil rights legislation.

An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialogue. The McCain/Johnson/Daschle bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, Administration officials and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: First, I recognize that the Senator has time. But I didn't know if we were going to alternate speakers. Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to use all of his 15 minutes and then turn it over to me?

I am sorry. I don't want to in any way deny the Senator from Ohio his right to speak. Usually one side makes an argument, and then the other replies, and then go back. Are we not doing that?

This discussion will be on my time. But usually when we have a time allocation we go back and forth. Is the Senator from Wyoming going to take all of his 15 minutes and then give me all of mine? Is that the way we are going to do it?

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has the right to speak, but it was not part of the agreement. I was just referring to the usual and customary behavior in the Senate.

No. We didn't.

When do I get my time? There are 15 minutes on each amendment?

Mr. President, I rise with vigor to unabashedly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. The reason I do is that he reintroduces the words ``quota'' and ``target.''

The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming essentially says that a ``target'' or a ``goal'' is to be considered--``target, target, quota, quota.'' I thought we didn't like targets and quotas. I am surprised that the Senator from Wyoming is so enthusiastic about them.

Under the Thomas amendment, Federal managers will still be forced to meet arbitrary quotas for privatization without real criteria, rationales, or consideration. Under the Thomas amendment, the goal is to get a quota or a target--not better government.

Let us be very clear. My original amendment never did seek the end to privatization. Privatization must be based on thoughtful criteria as established by the Congress in the FAIR Act.

Let us privatize Federal jobs where appropriate, but let us keep a strong, independent Federal workforce.

I want to deal with the very valid issues raised by the Senator from Maine. I agree. I wanted to modify my amendment. I wanted to modify my amendment by adding what is now in the first paragraph in the Thomas amendment, which I agree to--that nothing in this section would prevent any agency of the executive branch from subjecting work performed by the Federal Government employees to be contracted out to public or private competition.

I wanted to do that this morning. The Senator from Wyoming would not agree to that modification. We went into a dialog. In the dialog, the Senator from Maine, again, offered a very constructive recommendation-- that nothing in this section would limit the use of such funds under the Government Performance Act.

I was willing to go with that. If we had agreed to that, we could have agreed to that modification this morning and Senators could be heading home tonight. But, no, OMB had to get into the act. They insisted that this paragraph say, unless there has to be a target or quota. Sure. They say based on research and sound analysis.

Let me tell you. When the fox is guarding the hen house, I don't care what accounting system they have. They are still going after targets and they are still going after quotas. That is why I object to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.

I would love to have agreed to the original two paragraphs that I think would have met the very valid concern of the other side.

I salute those on the other side who are reformers. But, no, we didn't go that route.

I am still opposing it. Anything with the word ``target'' in it and anything with the word ``quota'' in it. I am fighting today. I am fighting all night, if I have to. I will fight tomorrow, and I will fight on until the end of the 108th Congress.

I am not going to destroy the integrity of the civil service system with arbitrary quotas and with arbitrary and capricious targets. We are going to do this right. We are going to do it under the law. We are not going to turn Federal managers into bounty hunters.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I hope when we do another process such as this and enter into negotiations and when the negotiation is over we don't come back and offer something that had been rejected as an amendment.

I am disappointed that this amendment is being offered. That is politics. Everyone has a right to offer their amendments. I accept the offer of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Ohio for the long haul and for discussion.

This is very serious. We do know we need a modernized civil service. We do know we need to reform. But we do not need targets and quotas where OMB has said itself, get rid of 127,000, 500,000 jobs this year. So 127,000 people? Who are we going to get rid of? Let's start with the Nobel prize winners at NIH. Who needs them? They can go off to the private sector. Good-bye. Who needs a Nobel prize winner for finding the cure for Alzheimer's? Maybe we could contract out Customs officers. Maybe we could go to rent-a-cop agencies.

Or what about those secretaries who keep the agencies going--like the one who went to my high school who has worked for the FBI for nearly 50 years in Baltimore, who has helped keep the FBI going, such as when the FBI was out trying to find the sniper who killed several Marylanders and people from Northern Virginia.

I don't know what is so hostile about Federal employees. If we want to save money in pensions, and if we want to save money in health care, that is another issue. But bounty hunters? No. Maybe bounty hunters are OK when you go after predators, but I don't think the Federal employees should be subjected to bounty hunters.

Guess who else is opposed to this amendment. Federal managers, because they say all they are going to be doing is paperwork to be able to justify this.

I could elaborate. Everybody knows I am opposed to the Thomas amendment because it is just a dressed-up version of going after quotas, which I tried to stop in the first place.

Mr. President, I know that it is getting late. I think we ought to have a vote on this. If I prevail, by defeating the Thomas amendment, we are done. If not, I am going to come back and have another say.

Mr. President, I yield all of my time back.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which is provided for under the unanimous consent agreement.

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

Mr. President, I believe we can move expeditiously along on this debate. Might I inquire from the Presiding Officer the amount of time we have to debate this amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, my amendment is the original amendment that I had pending this morning. It seeks to maintain the integrity of the civil service system by making sure that civil service is never subjected to bounty hunters looking to get rid of their jobs through arbitrary and capricious targets and quotas. It makes sure that the civil service never lapses into cronyism or political patronage.

My amendment prevents Federal agencies from establishing or applying arbitrary targets or quotas for the contracting out of Federal jobs.

I want to be clear that my amendment does not prohibit privatization. Privatization can continue to go forth as established by Congress in the FAIR Act of 1998. It allows contracting out. I don't object to that. What I object to is targets, quotas, and bounty hunters. Firstly, this is the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Next, we are at war. We are fighting a war against terrorism. We also created a new agency called Homeland Security. Lastly, we are facing the largest number of potential retirees from civil service in over 30 years.

Don't we want a civil service? I am proud of the civil service. Members of my family have been part of the Federal civil service. My brother-in-law was a librarian, I have a sister who was a secretary, and I am a Senator. I believe if we are going to recruit and retain the people we need, we need to make sure we do not embark upon this arbitrary, capricious, hostile, and predatory behavior. That is not the way to govern. That is not the way to inspire. That is not the way to recruit, and it is certainly not the way to retain.

It is not that Barbara Mikulski is opposed to this; Federal managers are opposed to this amendment. They are concerned that they are going to be writing lots of justifications on how to retain jobs. They want to fight for America. They want to fight for or perform the missions of their agencies. We went from an era of patronage politics. Now we are embroiled in an atmosphere of partisan politics. I wish we could get back to performance-based politics, sound civil service, good reform, some of the ideas being proposed by the other side of the aisle, looking at what should be contracted out, which would maintain the mission of the agency, give value to the taxpayer but dignity to the Federal employee.

So what is wrong with that? I will tell you why the amendment is being opposed. What we want to be able to do is allow the privatization to occur under the laws that now exist.

The FAIR Act of 1998 and the 76-OMB circular that was established in the 1960s in the Kennedy-Johnson era is what I want.

My amendment simply prohibits the arbitrary and capricious contracting out by saying:

None of the funds made available in this act may be used by

an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce numerical

targets or quotas.

That is all it says.

If you are for quotas, vote for this. If you are for targets, vote for this. If you are for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, go ahead and do it. Who is going to hire these people? Are we going to create new corporations?

What about all those guys who worked for Enron? Maybe they could get into ``let's hire a public employee and privatize.'' And all the guys from WorldCom, maybe when they get out on parole they could start a new agency to pick up these Federal employees.

I do not know for the life of me why we are so hostile to Federal employees. We have less of a workforce now, and we are asking them to fight for America; we are asking them to work for missions, the agencies. We took away their privileges in homeland security, and now we are going to take away their jobs.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for asking to be a cosponsor. I reserve such time as I may have.

Is the Senator yielding back all his time?

Excuse me?

Mr. President, I want to make a few quick points. First, my amendment, word for word, was voted for in the House of Representatives. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to my very good friend, the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment was offered by two Congressmen from Virginia, Moran and Wolf. This amendment passed the House 261 to 166. Tom Davis, Jo Ann Davis, and Frank Wolf voted for this. I might also note that the Presiding Officer voted for it when he was in the House. So it had bipartisan support.

I wish we had that bipartisan support. I wish the people who voted for it in the House would vote for it now that they are in the Senate. That is No. 1.

No. 2, who would be contracted out? OMB has told the agencies, 127,500 people by the end of 2003. They are going to go for the largest numbers in the quickest way. It is going to be clerical. It is going to be support. It is going to be the mail. It is going to have a tremendous impact on people of color who have worked their way into Federal civil service.

If one reads the Federal Managers Magazine, they have said the VA has said it is going to have a tremendous impact, they fear, on their diversity. The same has also been said by other agencies.

Again, I am not looking for quotas in diversity anymore than I am looking for quotas in contracting out, but I want us to know who is going to be affected. It is not going to be that high-tech software engineer.

I believe that just as the Northern Virginia High Tech Council has offered great ideas and ingenuity through their members, so has Maryland. We understand that.

Let's look at NIH. Let's look at FDA. Who is going to be contracted out there? Is it really going to be the Nobel prize winner? No. It is going to be a lot of folks who do the thankless day to day work who are going to be contracted out.

Now, my colleagues also need to know, I fear for national security. In many of these agencies, it is going to be the blue-collar jobs, such as the electricians, the people who are the facility managers, and others.

Vote yes on Mikulski.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Hutchison in introducing the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill that passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent in the 107th Congress.

Today Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must, together, move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack.

I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11th.

After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security.

The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: first, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; fourth and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.

To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security.

The legislation we are reintroducing today, directs the TSA to: 1. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; 2. Establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; 3. set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safe-guard cargo from tampering; and 4. Inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis.

The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' This report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes.

The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets.

The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections.

We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo.

Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security.

Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law.

I would like to thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on the issue of transportation security and I urge my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer, to introduce the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act'' to authorize the United States Mint to issue a commemorative coin that will honor the San Francisco Old Mint and help restore this historic building in downtown San Francisco.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historical landmark for San Francisco, the State of California, and the United States. Beginning its operations in 1854, the San Francisco Mint was established to take advantage of the plentiful gold and silver mined in the West during the California Gold Rush. At one point, more than half of the money minted in the United States came from the San Francisco Mint, and it once held a third of the Nation's gold supply. Today the ``S'' Mint Mark is found on many rare coins as well as on many new proof coin sets.

The Old Mint Building, located in the heart of the city, has been standing for more than 125 years as the oldest stone building in San Francisco. It is the Old Mint opened in 1874, it was the largest Federal building in the West. Architect Alfred B. Mullet designed this building which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A.B. Mullet is the same architect who designed both the U.S. Treasury building and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington D.C.

A product of America's ``Gilded Age,'' the Old Mint is architecturally reflective of a distinguished line of Greek revival- style buildings that were soon to be eclipsed by other designs at the turn of the century.

Aided by its magnificent stone structure, the Old Mint Building was able to survive the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906. In fact, the Mint was the only financial instruction that remained operable after the earthquake and the building was used as the treasury for the city's disaster relief funds.

The San Francisco Old Mint Building minted coins until 1937 when the building became too small and its operations moved to a larger space elsewhere in San Francisco. In the years since then, the building has deteriorated. In 1994, the Bureau of the Mint closed the Old Mint because it could not afford the then-estimated $20 million seismic retrofit to bring the building up to code. Since then the building, transferred to the General Services Administration, has remained closed.

Now, the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society has proposed an exciting project to restore and rejuvenate the Old Mint Building in downtown San Francisco. A fine history museum supported by shops, restaurants, community office space, a coin shop, and a visitors center will combine to make the building a striking and viable destination.

I am introducing this legislation to honor the history of the San Francisco Old Mint and the role it played in rebuilding the great ``City by the Bay'' after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins, which will be emblematic of the San Francisco Old Mint Building and its importance to California and the United States.

The commemorative coin will also help provide funds for the building's restoration. The proceeds generated from the sale of these commemorative coins will be paid to the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society for the building's rehabilitation.

The San Francisco Old Mint is venerated by coin collectors as the ``Granite Lady'' and I believe it is worthy of a commemorative coin. I am very pleased to note that the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, CCCAC, has agreed and that its members have unanimously endorsed this legislation for a 2006 coin, a year that will mark the 100-year anniversary of the building's survival of the 1906 earthquake and fire.

2006 is also the year the U.S. Mint will issue the California quarter and I expect both coins will be attractive to coin collectors. The CCCAC's recommendation will be included in its 2002 annual report that will be delivered to Congress before the end of this month.

Collectors, Californians, and millions of Americans hold the San Francisco Old Mint in the highest regard as a national treasure. Because no other such icon of the numismatic community has been honored by the issuance of a commemorative coin, I believe the San Francisco Old Mint merits commemoration at this time.

I believe honoring and restoring the San Francisco Old Mint Building is an important historic preservation project. I hope my colleagues will join me to support the San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act to honor the unique and proud history of the ``Granite Lady.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to present to the Senate a series of amendments that have been modified since they have been introduced. After that, the Senator from New Jersey has an amendment to offer on which there will be a 15-minute time limitation equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes equally divided on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey with no other amendments in order.

After the Senator's amendment is presented, we will have a vote in relation to that. I will probably move to table it. We, then, will have a series of amendments from the agriculture subcommittee and from the interior subcommittee that have been worked out. Following that, Senator Stabenow wishes to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and speak briefly.

We will then go to third reading. We have, I believe, two Members who wish to speak briefly before third reading. If Senators will stay with us, we will probably have about 45 minutes to an hour of time ahead of us.

Does the Senator from Nevada have any comment about that?

I think I misspoke. I think Senator Stabenow wishes to have a sense-of-the-Senate regarding conferees. Am I correct?

I have not said that. The Senator has that right. But I am offering modified amendments before we take up the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I now offer a series of amendments, and after I name them I will ask that they be considered en bloc: Amendment No. 112 offered by Senator Bunning and Senator Santorum--these are modifications at the desk that have been cleared on both sides-- amendment No. 6 by Senator Coleman; amendment No. 83 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 85 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 131 by Senators Harkin, Durbin, and Landrieu; amendment No. 136 by Senator Mikulski and others; amendment No. 144 by Senator Santorum; amendment No. 156 by Senator Domenici; amendment No. 172 by Senators Landrieu and Snowe; amendment No. 150 by Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 199 by Senators Durbin and Hutchison; amendment No. 186, which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution by Senator Bond; amendment No. 142 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 178 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 57 by Senator McCain--that is the Korea sense-of-the-Senate resolution-- amendment No. 167 by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 166 by Senator Byrd-- that is the China commission--and amendment No. 188 by Senator Dodd.

To my knowledge, we have no objections to any of those.

No. 112 was cleared. We showed that to you. It was the one modified by your subcommittee.

It was.

Will the Senator make the statement after we adopt this package?

I still have the floor, Mr. President.

We have not been able to clear that one yet. It is not in this package. We have another series in a package. There is another package coming later.

We will confer with the Senator.

I now ask unanimous consent that the series of amendments that I have referred to be modified in accordance with the submissions that are at the desk.

Modified in accordance with the way we presented them to the desk. I, first, want to modify them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

I ask, then, that No. 112 be taken out of this package.

It will be at the desk, and we will consider it later.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg has 5 minutes on his amendment on the Superfund.

Very well.

Amendment No. 112, As Modified

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 112.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the immediate adoption of the modified amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not seen the modification.

I remove that objection.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 10, 28, 47, 65, As Modified; 88, 110, 139, As Modified;

155, 201, 218, 151, 50, 34, 126, 158, En Bloc

Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senate, I have two more amendments that have been cleared. I will make a request after I recite the amendments.

Amendment No. 10, Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 28, Senator Kennedy; amendment No. 47, Senator Feinstein; amendment No. 65, as modified, Senator Kyl; amendment No. 88, Senator Warner; amendment No. 110, Senators Boxer and Feinstein; amendment No. 139, as modified, Senators Graham, Nelson, and Voinovich; amendment No. 155, Senator Domenici; amendment No. 201, Senator Feingold; amendment No. 218, Senator Hatch; amendment No. 151, Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 50, Senator Sarbanes; amendment No. 34, Senator Craig; amendment No. 126, Senators Bingaman and Domenici; and amendment No. 158, Senators Bingaman and Domenici.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc.

Is that agreeable?

I urge they be adopted en bloc.

I have another list. I will similarly make a request that they be considered en bloc: Amendment No. 33, Senator Craig and Senator Durbin; amendment No. 102, Senator Leahy. It should be modified so that ``shall'' reads ``may.'' I ask for that modification now.

Amendment No. 205, Senator McConnell; amendment No. 236, Senator Harkin; amendment No. 243, Senator Edwards. Further, at the desk are modifications for amendment No. 135, Senator Talent; amendment No. 116, Senator Leahy; amendment No. 226, Senator Kohl; amendment No. 163, Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Harkin. I ask that those amendments be so modified according to the items at the desk.

On amendment No. 187, there is a substitute at the desk. On behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask that the substitute be considered as part of this package in lieu of the original version of this amendment.

Amendment No. 62, as modified, Senator McConnell; amendment No. 238, Senator Dodd; and amendment No. 129, Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe. Mr. President, amendment No. 62 is a modification. I did not read that. I ask that that original amendment be modified according to the papers that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc.

I ask that they be adopted en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 226, as modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we reach third reading, Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and Stabenow be recognized for 5 minutes.

The Senator is correct, but we do not have the modifications yet at the desk.

I inquire of the Senators mentioned if those four Senators will be willing to speak after final passage.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and Stabenow each have their time after final passage and that Senator Coleman be added for 5 minutes.

Senator Stabenow may proceed now.

Mr. President, Senator Stabenow seeks 5 minutes on a matter of the sense of the Senate regarding instructions to conferees.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized for 5 minutes at this time and I regain control of the floor after that.

The request is that the other Senators speak after final passage. Two Senators have a plane to catch to go on a very important mission for the Senate and they need to leave.

Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution concerning instruction to conferees, and I am pleased to consider the Senator's suggestion. I ask that the sense-of-the-Senate amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, there are two remaining amendments. No. 207 is at the desk as well as No. 143, as modified. This is the modification for No. 143. I send it to the desk.

I ask that the amendments be adopted en bloc.