Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are trying to work this out. The Senator's amendment is a very good amendment. I would like to visit with him a little bit about it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, we have some modifications to make, and we have a list of those amendments that have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 1040, As Modified

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification for Senator Bond on amendment No. 1040 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, I send to the desk Senator Byrd's modification to amendment No. 1044 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 1045 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, the following amendments have been cleared by both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that they be adopted: amendment No. 1022, offered by the leadership on both sides of the aisle; amendment No. 1040, as modified, offered by Senator Bond; amendment No. 1048, offered by Senator Smith; amendment No. 1044, as modified, offered by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 1036, offered by Senator Reed; amendment No. 1032, offered by Senator Durbin; amendment No. 1037, offered by Senator Reed; and amendment No. 1045, as modified, offered by Senator Conrad. I ask for their adoption.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I will.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I remind Senators that we are going to start calling up these amendments right after lunch. I want to warn Senators to come down and defend their amendments. If not, we are going to start taking action on them first thing after lunch. We have the order already agreed to, and we want to complete this bill by tomorrow morning, if possible. There is more impending business before the Senate. It is important that the appropriations process move forward. We will be calling up those amendments this afternoon, and those Senators defending and offering those amendments should be on the floor to defend them.

Mr. President, we are setting the priority of amendments now and consulting. We will have that decision made in just a bit. We want to work on that. We have a lot of work to do this afternoon and on into the evening. There have been some changes as far as amendments that have been offered.

In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Murray--how much time will the Senator need?

Fifteen minutes, and after that, Senator Kerry will be recognized, and Senator Akaka needs about 10 minutes.

Right after the chairman is done with his duties.

Yes.

First let me add something, if the Senator from Massachusetts will withhold?

Then the Senator will follow the Chair.

And Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and Senator Akaka is after Mr. Isakson. Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Voinovich, and Senator Kerry--

I will take the chair.

Mr. President, it is about time we got down to business this afternoon and start taking care of some of these amendments. We would like to dispose of this bill at least by tomorrow.

I call up the Coburn amendment No. 1002 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, I do not know how one signs on to all of what was just stated by my friend from Kentucky. I can also compliment him in a couple of areas and say that I would not be here had it not been for him. I do not know if I should mourn or celebrate that.

Nonetheless, if anyone ever visits Kentucky and takes in the traditions of Kentucky, they will find out the former Senator was a part of that landscape and the present-day Senator is the same way. So congratulations.

I yield the floor back to the Senator from Oklahoma on his amendment where we were interrupted, amendment 1019, which is in order.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. The argument is made there are very few of us here who do not look for extra funds to put into IHS, and especially in the diabetes program. We know that is important.

This year, the committee has included an additional $135 million to support Indian health services. This is the largest increase in many years targeted specifically at providing greater support for hospital and clinical services, dentistry, nursing, diabetes, and

other important health services. Funds for population growth and medical inflation have been included for the first time in probably a decade or more.

This increase comes at a time when most other agency budgets in the bill are not growing--in fact, many are declining. For example, EPA is reduced $144 million below their current year level; the Forest Service $648 million below; and the National Park Service, $52 million below. I point to these reductions both to underscore the commitment all of us share to improving health care in Indian country, but also to demonstrate that increases for any one agency come at the expense of others.

My colleague's amendment proposes to add funds to the special diabetes program. This program was initiated through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and reauthorized in December 2002 to provide $150 million annually for 5 years beginning in 2004. These are not appropriated dollars, it is a mandatory spending program for the prevention and treatment of diabetes within Indian communities. In addition to this program, the IRS itself spends over $100 million annually from within its appropriation to address diabetes treatment and prevention. There are also other programs funded outside this bill--the Centers for Disease Control comes to mind--that direct funds to Indian country for diabetes work. I mention these programs to highlight the fact there are significant resources being dedicated to diabetes work now with this committee's support and we are encouraged by the impact these funds are having in Indian communities.

Alcohol and substance abuse is another area where we are directing a substantial amount of funding into tackling this problem. This budget proposes a $6.3 million increase bringing the total for these efforts up to $145.3 million. Of this funding, 97 percent goes directly to tribally contracted or compacted programs. The committee has been an advocate for this program and has worked to increase funding over the years.

Funding levels for these two programs may not be in amounts that are ideal, but they are significant. Other programs of importance to our Members were proposed to take substantial reductions in the budget request, which we have struggled to restore. In the end, as I have said before, we have to strike a balance in this bill. I think the committee bill does a good job of hitting this balance and I urge Members to support the committee position.

I yield for a question.

This bill has such a delicate balance that there could be--and I will raise it--a budgetary point of order. That is what we have to work with. The Senator from Oklahoma knows how to work with budgets and how we work with appropriations. It proposes to add $121 million to the Indian Health Service for a special diabetes program and an alcohol substance abuse program. The offset would be derived from an equivalent reduction in land acquisition. This transfer of funds results in a change of outlays that causes the bill to exceed its outlay allocation.

Now we might work on offsets in some other areas. As to the argument that you would make about land acquisition, we have always had land acquisition, but we have also had land sales. I wish I could stand here and report to you that we had as many sales as we have had acquisitions because I, for one, support the idea that there should be no net gain of land by the Federal Government. I come from county government. I know whenever the Government buys land, it takes it off the tax rolls. It hurts me as a county commissioner to provide all the programs that I have been asked to provide at the county level. In fact, we passed some legislation at one time when I first came here, which I was part of, of no net gain--or no net loss--whichever way you want to define it.

The way this is structured does raise a point of order, and I will raise that point. The pending amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma increases discretionary spending in excess of the 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. Therefore, I raise the point of order against the amendment according to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma has another amendment.

Amendment No. 1053

That is perfectly amenable to me. In fact, I would suggest the pending business be set aside and call up amendment No. 1053.

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be adopted by voice vote.

First, the unanimous consent is to vitiate the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

We all live by sunshine, I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma.

I think--I will have to ask counsel on this--whenever the House passes their bill and sends it to the Senate, and we take that bill to our committee, both the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, that House bill contains all of their earmarks. And some of those earmarks are covered up, agreed. But that bill is available for the Senators' perusal whenever it comes over here.

Now, most of these, however--recommended by the House and the Senate both--appear in the tables of the statement of the managers that accompanies that conference report. They are all there. All you have to do is kind of look for them. Some of them are not because the two bills are merged.

So in order to get the bills balanced out, merged, and back on the floor with a conference report--and you have to remember, the staff reads that whole bill, every word, before it is in its final form and comes back here for final consideration--some of those do get covered up. But in each body, all of those earmarks are a matter of public record, what goes on in their committees on the House side and the Senate side. This is to facilitate getting that report put together, the bill coming back on this floor, and getting it passed.

So what the Senator is asking for is more time between the time the House passes it, we pass it, it goes to conference, and then getting it back on the floor and full disposal of the conference report.

So it is not to hide anything. The way it is done is not meant to hide anything. And nothing is hidden. You just have to follow the trail in order to dig it out. And I realize sometimes the public would have a hard time doing that. But as a Senator, we even have to work at it at times. But, basically, that is the reason for the process: to save time, take some of the load off the staff that has to put this together.

So I would ask that the body oppose this particular amendment.

Well, I will tell you, I have read those conference reports, also--even the bills that come over from the House--like you. If you have a clear paper trail, and you read everything, about 80 percent of all earmarks are contained in the conference report. There are just a few that are matched up, and we do not get to see them in the conference report.

I will. I am still going to fight for the 20 percent. How is that?

Sure. Listen, I helped pass a law with Senator Lieberman on E-Government. Any citizen can go to their computer and dial it up online, and they can follow it all the way through. There are ways of doing that. I was part of that debate on E-Government. And we are going to do another E-Government bill that is going to open it up even wider, we would hope.

Yes.

I would answer that by saying those citizens who are really, really interested in how we budget and how we spend do have the capabilities and the knowledge to access that information and to follow it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the vote in relation to the pending motion to waive with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 1019, to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 1003, with no second degrees in order to the amendments prior to the votes and with 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote.

Mr. President, I urge the body to not support the amendment offered by my good friend from Oklahoma. Everything is listed in earmarks either in the House bill or the Senate bill. The conference report misses some of them because they overlap. I ask the body not to support this amendment and support the committee.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we decided to call up amendment numbered 1026, the Sununu-Bingaman amendment regarding the Tongass National Forest.

There is no time agreement on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment 1049, offered by Senator Kyl, as modified; amendment numbered 1060, offered by Senator Landrieu, as modified; amendment 1055, offered by Mr. Bingaman, as modified; amendment numbered 1061, offered by Senator Obama; amendment numbered 1030, offered by Mr. Bingaman, as modified; amendment 1020, offered by Senator Coburn, as modified; amendment numbered 1031, offered by Mr. Bingaman; and amendment 1058, offered by Mr. Bingaman.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that other than a series of amendments which have been cleared by both managers, all other amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the following amendments, and, further, that the amendments be considered as follows:

Boxer amendment No. 1023, regarding pesticides; I or my designee with a first degree relating to pesticides; further that there be 120 minutes equally divided to be used concurrently on both amendments, with a vote in relation to my amendment, followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment;

Dorgan amendment No. 1025, regarding Indian health, 20 minutes equally divided;

Amendment No. 1026, offered by Mr. Sununu, regarding the Tongass, 30 minutes equally divided;

Senator Murray's amendment No. 1052, regarding veterans health; Senator Santorum's second-degree amendment to the Murray amendment relating to veterans health; provided that there be 110 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees to be used concurrently on the first and second-degree amendments;

Senator Dorgan's amendment No. 1059, regarding Cuba travel, 20 minutes equally divided; provided that the vote occur in relation to the motion to suspend the rules relative to that amendment; further, that if the motion to suspend is agreed to, the amendment be subject to further debate and amendment;

Senator Kyl's amendment No. 1050, 5 minutes for Senator Kyl, with the amendment then withdrawn;

Senator Sarbanes' amendment No. 1046, 5 minutes saved for Senator Sarbanes.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in relation to the above-listed amendments, with no second degrees in order to the amendments prior to the votes unless otherwise indicated; further that following the disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, in SR-328A, the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and related crop insurance issues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 9 a.m. to consider favorably reporting S. 1307, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and S.J. Res. 18, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Medicaid Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Threatening the Health Care Safety Net.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commission on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Regulation of Indian Gaming.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``Emergency Hearing to Examine the Shortfall in VA's Medical Care Budget.''. The hearing will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet, Tuesday, June 28, 2005, from 2:30 p.m.-5 p.m. in Dirksen G50 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 28th, 2005, at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 206, a bill to designate the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, and for other purposes; S. 556, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona; S. 588, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Arizona trail as a national scenic trail or a national historic trail; and S. 955, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including in the national park system certain sites in Williamson County, Tennessee, relating to the battle of Franklin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 183, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged en bloc from further consideration of S. Res. 154 and S. Res. 155 and that the Senate proceed en bloc to their consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions and preambles be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, the Senate stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 29; I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2361, the Interior appropriations bill, as provided under the previous order.

Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Under a previous order, we will be debating the amendments and voting throughout the day

until final passage. I hope that all the debate time provided under the agreement will not be necessary. We have a lot of additional business ahead of us before we close this week, and every hour counts. Senators should anticipate these scheduled votes throughout the day until we complete the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, we are now on the Interior appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. First of all, it is on behalf of the majority leader and minority leader. It relates to congressional security.

This issue relates to a recent DC Board zoning adjustment granting a building height variance for a developer here in the vicinity of the Capitol.

Without going through some sensitive detail, let me simply say our two leaders have offered this amendment to prevent this variance from going into effect until the Capitol Police Board, with the consent of the Senate and House leadership, certifies that such a variance will not impact negatively on congressional security and increase Federal expenditures related to congressional security.

This amendment does not preclude development of the property, but it ensures that existing height regulations are honored and the security of the Capitol and all the people who work here is protected.

So I offer this amendment for the majority leader and minority leader.

Mr. President, I have a very important little conference to go to at 3:15. I see the ranking member of this committee on the floor. He did a great job on Friday, I am told, flying solo. So I am going to go to that meeting and just kind of turn the reins over to Senator Dorgan, my good friend from North Dakota.

We will start going through some amendments and start working this bill out this afternoon. It is our intention not to keep the Senate open all that long today. We will start working on those amendments as soon as possible.

We do not know yet.

It has been set aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by Senator Bond regarding the U.S. Geological Survey.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by Senator Craig of Idaho regarding mineral rights in the Payette National Forest.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment offered by Senator Warner of Virginia regarding the National Park Service.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1028 regarding the Great Smoky Mountains.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1012 offered by Senator Ensign regarding the sale of certain lands in Nevada.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1033 offered by Senator Ensign regarding structures at Lake Tahoe.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, to offer en bloc amendments Nos. 1002, 1003, 1015, 1019, and 1020.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

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

Mr. President, we have some amendments we can accept. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by Mr. Ensign, 1033; Mrs. Feinstein, 1024; the majority leader, Mr. Frist, 1028; Mr. Wyden, 1035; and Mr. Craig's amendment numbered 1041 be called up, and I ask unanimous consent they be agreed to en bloc.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my good friend from North Dakota is running a little late. I will make my opening statement this morning, we will get his remarks, and then we will start moving. We are sort of conflicted this morning, as the Chair understands, but we will work our way through in accepting for consideration the amendments that will be offered to this appropriations bill.

Today we begin consideration of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I appreciate the efforts of the two leaders to get this bill to the floor before the recess, in the hope that we can get a few appropriations bills to the President's desk before the August recess.

The bill before the Senate combines funding for the traditional Interior bill agencies with funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies that were previously funded in the VA-HUD bill. Having these new agencies under our jurisdiction has been a real learning experience for me, and a real challenge in some areas.

The EPA is an agency with a very broad reach. It administers, in cooperation with states and tribes, a long list of environmental statutes including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. As such, the agency has a tremendous impact on all sectors of the economy, on our public health and, of course, on the environment.

I have been approached by many different members and outside groups about attaching legislative provisions that would address EPA rules and regulations of one sort or another. On a number of these issues, I am sympathetic. But with the exception of language relating to regulation of small engines, which I think we resolved in the full committee markup, this bill is very clean with regard to legislative provisions. I hope we can keep it that way. Otherwise the number of potential amendments would be limitless, and we jeopardize our chances of enacting this important bill in a timely manner.

The bill reported by the committee recommends a grand total of $26.3 billion in new budget authority. It also matches the subcommittee's discretionary allocation of $26.207 billion. As always, any amendments that add funding for particular programs must be fully offset.

The subcommittee's allocation represents a cut of $534 million below the fiscal year 2005 level for the agencies funded in this bill. That is a 2 percent cut. In an appropriations bill that is fairly personnel- intensive, a 2 percent cut is not insignificant. Simply keeping pace with pay costs and health benefits for park and forest rangers, Indian health care professionals, and other critical personnel requires a significant increase in funding over last year. Those increases, combined with the overall reduction in the size of the bill, mean that the grant programs and construction accounts in this bill are squeezed substantially.

One area where this bill does not include a reduction is in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program helps finance wastewater treatments systems throughout the country and serves to protect both the health of the American public and the environment.

The President's budget proposed cutting the Revolving Fund from $1.1 billion to $730 million. Given the tremendous need in this country for effective wastewater treatment, I could not recommend that cut to the Senate. This bill restores every penny of the proposed reduction.

So if any of my colleagues are wondering what happened to a particular EPA earmark that they may have requested and trust me, I have heard from many of them, the basic answer is that it is in the Revolving Fund. EPA earmarks in this bill are greatly reduced from last year's levels. The same goes for many of the programmatic increases that were proposed in the EPA budget. This bill provides few of those increases. These are simply the tradeoffs we had to make.

For the land management agencies funded in this bill, we have focused on maintaining their core operating budgets while restoring a portion of the proposed reductions to capital accounts.

We have increased funding for park operations by $65 million over last year, and included $20 million over the budget request for basic park operations. I continue to hear from my colleagues and from folks back in Montana that they are concerned about park operating budgets. I am pleased that we have been able to sustain the large increase for park operations provided in last year's bill and have been able to build on that. Preserving such unique American treasures as Yellowstone and Glacier National Park will remain a priority as long as I am chairman of this subcommittee.

In the Bureau of Land Management, increases have been provided for law enforcement, weed control and minerals management. While these jobs may not be as glamorous or well known as park rangers or smokejumpers, they are no less important. BLM has an enormous responsibility in terms of the sheer acreage it manages, and in meeting the multiple use mandate with which it is charged.

In the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, this bill restores a portion of the proposed $166 million cut in the two agencies' construction accounts. But we are still left with significant reductions from last year's funding levels.

As outlined in the budget request, language has been included in the bill to facilitate the consolidation and sale of Forest Service administrative sites. In the short term, revenues from these sales will help fill the hole in the construction and maintenance account. But by no means does this address the long term capital needs of the Forest Service. I am concerned about the reductions we are making in this account if funds are not restored in future years.

This bill also supports programs that form the backbone of our trust relationship with American Indians and Alaska Natives. In both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service, we have provided increases for the core operating accounts.

The bill adds $48 million to the budget request for the operation of Indian Programs account, with increases for tribally controlled schools, welfare programs and Johnson-O'Malley education grants. Both Senator Dorgan and I have long believed that tribal community colleges are one of the most effective tools we have to educate our young people and further economic development in Indian country. That belief is reflected in the funding provided in this bill.

This bill also provides the full $146 million increase proposed in the budget request for Indian health services, which is a healthy 5 percent over last year. That amount includes an allowance for medical inflation and population growth for the first time in my memory. There is little question that the total need for health care services is greater than the funds we can provide, but within the context of the overall budget this moves us in the right direction.

For the BIA and IHS capital accounts, we have added $55 million to the amount proposed in the budget request. This leaves us below last year's levels, but will enable those agencies to make continued progress on the projects included in their facilities priority lists.

I should also mention briefly the issue of Indian trust reform. This is an issue on which this subcommittee and the Department of the Interior have spent a great deal of time and money. I wholeheartedly share the belief that we owe it to Native Americans to responsibly and accurately manage the lands and funds that the Federal Government holds in trust for various tribes and individual Indians. There is little question this hasn't always been the case. But there certainly is a case--several, in fact--about the degree to which the trust has been mismanaged, and what amounts the government may owe as a result. The Indian Affairs Committee has been working hard on

this issue, and I hope that they can find a reasonable way out of this intractable mess.

It is pretty clear to me, however, that it makes no sense to spend many billions of dollars on a historical accounting like the court is trying to mandate. It defies logic to think that's what Congress intended in passing that American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. Instead, this bill provides roughly level funding for the Department to continue a reasonable level of accounting work, and uses the proposed accounting increase to instead shore up various BIA and IHS programs that actually benefit Indian people. That is where our priorities should be.

About wildland fire management, some areas are experiencing a fire season, but we are getting a little moisture in Montana. We hope to avoid that this year. Another subject that has long troubled this subcommittee is funding for wildland firefighting. Obviously we have no way of knowing how much money will be required for firefighting in any given year, so we budget based on the 10-year average of suppression costs. In particularly bad fire years, that amount leaves us well short of the total need, and forces the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to raid other accounts until supplemental funding can be appropriated.

On a small scale, that system works. But in very bad fire years the massive borrowing has been highly disruptive to other important programs. Two years ago I worked with the Budget Committee and others to provide a pot of supplemental funding that could only be used for extraordinary firefighting needs. That mechanism has been highly successful thus far, and I hope that we can continue to work with the Budget Committee as we go forward to ensure that we are managing the fire program in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible.

The bill before the Senate provides a total of $2.513 billion for wildland fire management activities, including $767 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $1.746 billion for the Forest Service. The total includes $492 million for hazardous fuels reduction, which is an increase of $28 million over the FY 2005 level. We have also provided funds to restore proposed cuts in Rural Fire Assistance and State Fire Assistance. State and local governments are a vital part of the effort whenever fire breaks out.

In the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the bill provides $404 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, including Federal land acquisition, Forest Legacy, and the Stateside program. This is somewhat below last year's levels for the same group of programs, but is above the budget request and well above the House level of $214 million. The fund total includes $30 million for the Stateside program, which provides grants to states and local governments for recreation development and land acquisition. The budget and the House have proposed to terminate this program. A large number of my colleagues have expressed their concern about that proposal, so I'm pleased we've been able to keep the program going.

Let me close by expressing my appreciation once again to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan. He and his staff have been a pleasure to work with, and have helped shape this bill so that it reflects the priorities of members on both sides of the aisle.

I wish we could have done more in some instances, but in the context of a difficult budget I have no reservations about recommending this bill to my colleagues. For those of you who may have amendments, I urge you to get them to me and to Senator Dorgan--or our staffs--as quickly as possible so that we can complete work on this bill, and move on to other appropriations bills before the July 4 recess.

Again, I thank my good friend from North Dakota. We share a common border, but we also give thanks that there is the little Missouri River. So I welcome him this morning and look forward to his remarks.

Mr. President, I would add, I may go over to that listening session on Commerce. I would assume that Senator Dorgan is going to be around and you can consult with my staff and kind of manage things. Don't get too frisky and we will get this bill out of here by Tuesday noon.

I thank my ranking member.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, I call up amendment No. 1010, which relates to Indian gaming.

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

Mr. President, I think that is about the only amendment that we have to be offered in today's business. We have kind of run our trap lines. Senator Dorgan?

That is correct. We will huddle on that, on this amendment and others that will be coming to the floor later on.