Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 243 introduced earlier today by Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3229, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 1474), and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be adopted and the statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, October 16. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee, provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1689, the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill.

I further ask that amendment No. 1818 then be the pending business.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Thursday, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. Tomorrow morning the Senate will resume debate on Senator Byrd's amendment No. 1818. It is hoped that we can begin voting on the pending amendments and any other offered amendments at an early time tomorrow morning.

Earlier tonight the Senate agreed to a limited list of amendments. Therefore, Senators should notify the managers if they intend to offer an amendment from that list.

Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and into the evening tomorrow in relation to amendments to the Iraq-Afghanistan appropriations bill.

I want to put a footnote here. I did attend the reception for Senator Mansfield. He was a man of few words. He knew the weight of a word. I was also in the press corps in Montana when he served in this body. I tell you, if the producer told you to fill 5 minutes, it would take 30 questions to do it.

He shall be missed by the State of Montana. He is missed by this country. Now he belongs to history, and that is the way it is supposed to be.

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

Before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I do not know where she got hold of that poster, but I have said ever since the invasion started, and the assault towards Baghdad, our greatest ambassadors, who are on the ground and are still there today, are our warriors. The effects of our action in Iraq will not really be felt for another 10 years or so. When the young folks seen in that poster become adult age, they will remember that warrior who walked up to them, dusty, sandy, dirty, greasy, ladened with armor, weapons and goggles on his helmet; yet they reached out the hand of friendship in the form of a bottle of water or a candy bar.

One must remember these young folks were hunkered down in their homes and told how evil this Army was that was approaching their area. When the Army arrived, they found out those things they had been deprived of, the bare essentials to survive the last few days, were available and had come from the hand of an American soldier or marine. That is why we hear so many of our military on the ground today telling us to rebuild the infrastructure, bring back the central services so these people can live, improve their quality of life, and rebuild their own country.

To a man, all the military people I have visited with who have come home have said that.

That is the genius of our country, when we look at it. We have always lived for the next generation. Our mothers and fathers wanted us to be educated better than they were.

I was raised on a small farm in the Midwest before I went to Montana when I was 18. The generation before us wanted us to be educated better than they were. They wanted us to start up the economic ladder a little bit better than they started. I was a product of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In doing that in the family unit, of living for the next generation, this system has afforded the highest quality of life and standard of living for more of its citizens than any other society that has been developed on the face of this planet. That is what makes this particular mission in Iraq, in the Middle East, very important. Those young people who met and have a very positive view of Americans, who are the young ages of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12--the most impressionable years of a young person's life--will never forget that. That will be burned in their brains. There might be a lot of propaganda flying around, but they know. They shook the hand of and met our best ambassadors.

We didn't start this fight. We didn't start this fight. Because if 9/ 11 of the year '01 doesn't mean anything else, it should carry the same significance as Pearl Harbor or any other devastating attack that has been carried out against this country. We didn't start this fight, but they brought the fight to the wrong people and the wrong country because of our values and because what we really believe in is that freedom equals opportunity, opportunity means choices, and choices have consequences.

It is this warrior who cleared the way. The polls now say the majority of the people in Iraq believe they are now better off than they were under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Why is $21 billion important? Saddam Hussein had a knack of controlling his people. He did it through the rationing of central services, the very basics of our community. He only had about 60 percent or 70 percent capacity to produce as much electricity for his country as he needed. So if he didn't like you, or you made him mad, or you came from the wrong side of the creek, you didn't get electricity. If anybody wanted centrally controlled health care? He had it. He rationed it. He used it to control. Water, whatever the central services, his infrastructure was in complete disarray. But he liked it like that. So he had to go, that tyrant--mass graves, history of gassing people, killing people, raiding his neighbors.

So we didn't start this fight. We are sure going to conclude it. We are sure going to develop a country of people who desire to be free and to live, to educate and to raise their kids in a free society. Representative government has already taken over in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of these funds, of course, go to our military in this particular piece of supplemental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

But those who would deny them freedoms and opportunities, and control them through fear, understand what this is about. It is about people who are in charge of their own destiny and are not afraid to stand for freedom or die for the next generation. That is what it is all about. That is what this President envisioned when we were hit on 9/11. He didn't ask for those planes to fly into the World Trade Center or hit the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He didn't ask for the first attack on the World Trade Center. He didn't ask for the attacks on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, our embassies around the world.

There is no negotiating with folks who use fear to control. For, if we fail here, the battle line is probably our own country. Since the Civil War, not a shot has been fired here. We have always carried the fight to the enemy's ground. That is what it is all about.

Representative government in small towns and political bounds and political units in Iraq have already taken hold. We are already establishing an interim government in Baghdad and it will not be long before they have a constitution, they will have elections.

Our interest there is in the generation of school kids because it is an investment. Is it an investment? Yes, but it is an investment in human lives, in human endeavors. Sure, it is a lot of money, but money is a tool. Money is a tool that can bring good or it can be evil, and we have chosen to use ours in the name of good.

Yesterday in committee we had some very good ideas on how we should help these people get on their own feet and prosper, how we can help. Yes, the $20 or $21 billion in this will do that. But how to administer that, what should it go for? What should it do? Because it is America's hand. It is not our hand of Congress, it is the people of America reaching out because the people of the United States know what is at stake. There were some very good ideas. Some were premature. Some will be considered here on the floor of the Senate and they will be argued on their own merits.

But when we take a look at the overall package, it is a pretty solid package that we extend toward these people who now stand in harm's way, who now risk some disdain from their neighbors for joining a police force or a militia that will stand for good. It takes some bravery to do that, in a land where terrorism and death and destruction have been commonplace for the last 2 decades.

We will be that steel in their backbone. But we also have to give them the funds with which to build. They have made the decision. There are polls which indicate that. They have made the decision to stand for good and right and freedom. That is what this bill is all about. It may be characterized in many ways, but I think it is America's best hour. To establish another democracy in the Middle East where basically there is only one, to expand those freedoms now to the other side of the river, it is a noble and just thing to do.

I thank the Chair for the time to express my views about the importance of this legislation. Their values are not much different than ours: Their families, their kids, their country. Our ability to fix irrigation systems and communication systems so they can talk, and a system within which they can feed themselves, and have something to say about their own destiny, that is a noble cause. That is an American cause. That is what we are all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for a woman who was recently named the American Trucking Association's National Driver of the Year, and resides in Lavina, MT.

Since Doris Hansen started driving semi trucks in 1967, she has logged more than 3 million miles. Beginning at the age of 19 as a driver for her father-in-law, Doris has preserved an accident-free driving record, with a personal commitment to safety for over 35 years. While Doris and her husband John sometimes drove as a sleeper team, she has logged most of her hours as a solo driver at a time when women were rare in the business. When Doris began her career, some companies did not offer separate shower facilities and break rooms, while others denied women access altogether.

Doris is currently leased to Quality Transportation, Inc. stationed in Baker, MT. Since signing with Quality in 1987, she has never lost a single cargo or filed a damage claim. She currently operates a conventional three-axle tractor and a 48-foot flatbed trailer, hauling general freight in ``the lower 48.'' She has also logged the last 13 summers in-State pulling belly-dump trailers on road construction projects, winning numerous safety and industry awards, including Montana Motor Carriers 2002-03 Driver of the Year. Although her job keeps her on the road, she and John have raised two children. Danielle is now a nurse in Big Sandy, MT, and J.J., who shares Doris' love of the road, is a truck driver as well.

Doris has been named American Trucking Association's first woman, and first Montanan, National Driver of the Year for 2003. Doris will be honored at American Trucking Association's 2003 Safety and Loss Prevention Management Council's Fall Conference in Jacksonville, FL tomorrow, and again at the American Trucking Association Management Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio, TX on October 20. I applaud Doris for her continued

commitment to safe driving, and hope that she will keep up the good work.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I am wondering if the Senator from California wants to speak, if we are going back and forth here. I don't want to preempt her.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee and everybody on the committee. You are probably hearing from the core of that committee today, reacting to the disappointment that we have gotten from the Oklahoma Federal District Court preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward and implementing the Do Not Call list.

The Do Not Call legislation turned out to be the most popular and probably the most necessary consumer initiative we have ever passed in the history of this body. From day one, people started to sign up; that was June 26. Up until now--you have heard the figures--over 50 million people have registered, and 138,000 of those are in Montana.

So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 16, 650,000 people called up. That gives us some idea of how consumers think of these telemarketers.

The ill-considered decision yesterday by the Federal District Court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong and its core assumption is that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list.

Let us make it very clear, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. The act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers and to establish and enforce the list. In fact, the Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the Do Not Call list.

Rather than waiting around for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, I am certainly glad the Congress has taken action very swiftly. It did not take long. In fact, one of my good friends who does not serve in this body anymore, who served from North Carolina, said this is almost a june bug issue, and it really is. We do not have to put Americans through unwarranted intrusions into their lives by telemarketing, and so we will pass this today.

I tell my good friend from North Dakota, my wife has it all figured out about telemarketers. We both may be home; the call comes in: Is Mr. Burns there? She says: I will call him--whether I am there or not. She lays the phone down and goes off and leaves it until we hear the little disconnect: ``If you are trying to place a call, please hang up and try again.'' So that is our attitude towards that.

By any estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily. The implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent, and those are figures that are out now. So if they do not get the message by talking to a telephone that does not have an ear on the other end of it, then we will take care of it this way.

People are rightly sick and tired of this endless interruption into their private lives. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank my good friend from Nevada for allowing me this time, and Senator Dorgan and the chairman of the full committee for acting this swiftly, because this takes care of it.

Let's make no bones about it, they clearly had the authority. They clearly had the funds to implement it. We gave it to them in appropriations and we gave them the authority this year. The telemarketers did not choose to abide by that law. So I heartily commend my good friends for offering this legislation.

By the way, if I am not on the list, you may put me on the list.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment at the Oklahoma Federal district court decision preventing the Federal Trade Commission from going forward on implementing the Do Not Call list.

The Do Not Call list has proven to be one of the most popular and necessary consumer initiatives in history. From the day consumers have been able to sign up for the Do Not Call list on June 26, over 50 million Americans have registered, including 138,841 in Montana. So urgent was the public's need to stop intrusive telemarketers that in the first 14 hours of enrollment on June 26, over 650,000 citizens added their numbers to the list.

Yesterday's ill-considered decision by the Federal district court in Oklahoma would prevent the Do Not Call list from going into effect next Wednesday. The decision is dead wrong in its core assumption that the FTC acted without statutory authority in creating and administering the Do Not Call list. In fact, Congress clearly granted the FTC the authority to set up the Do Not Call list by passing the Do Not Call Implementation Act in February of this year. This act gave the agency authority to collect fees from telemarketers to establish and enforce the list. The Omnibus Appropriations Act in February also authorized the FTC to enforce the do not call provisions.

Rather than waiting for an appeals court to overturn this wrongheaded decision, we must act quickly so that Americans do not have to suffer the needless and unwarranted intrusions into their lives by aggressive telemarketing. Unwanted telemarketing calls have reached unacceptable levels in our country. By one estimate, telemarketers attempt almost 105 million calls daily; implementation of the Do Not Call list would reduce these calls by almost 80 percent.

Americans are rightly sick and tired of these endless interruptions in their private lives, which often take place during the dinner hour, or at times when parents wish to spend uninterrupted quality time with their children. By responding rapidly to overturn this reckless and sloppy decision by the Oklahoma district court, Congress sends a clear message that this destructive hyper-marketing will no longer be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the FTC's authority to maintain and implement the Do Not Call Registry.

Mr. President, last week the Department of Commerce signed the sixth amendment to a memorandum of understanding between the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, and the Commerce Department. The first agreement was signed in 1998 to establish an organizational body to manage the technical coordination of the Internet Domain Name Addressing System. In the subsequent years the agreement has been amended to reflect the needs of the organization to accommodate the industry and constituency it was created to support.

The Department of Commerce is hopeful this will be the last agreement they have to sign with ICANN. The hope is for ICANN to show they have become a responsible organization and there can be a transition of the Domain Name System, DNS, management to private sector control, out of the hands of the department permanently.

Several items of interest have been brought to my attention during our oversight hearing on ICANN that I would like the Department of Commerce to consider before ICANN receives the freedom they want as an independent organization. They must first prove they are doing their job. I would encourage the Department of Commerce to establish dates of accomplishment to the milestones they have set out in their most recent memorandum of understanding with ICANN.

Specific, quantifiable goals will help ascertain if ICANN has created a stable environment where innovation and competition can flow freely for the area surrounding the DNS.

It was noted before Congress in the July 31, 2003, hearing that ICANN should be the organization to provide a forum for best practices for the naming and numbering system. The recent amendment to the memorandum of understanding notes the need to continue to develop and test accountability mechanisms. I would ask the department to set a date to determine if these best practices guidelines focusing on stability, security and interoperability have been determined and a set time for their implementation. The initial best practices could be established by a working group by the beginning of 2004 with a follow-up strategic plan for

implementation of the first best practice guideline for the industry with in the first 6 months of 2004.

The memorandum of understanding recommends the continued development and implementation of transparent procedures. I would again call for a date certain to ensure the decisionmaking process set by ICANN is transparent, predictable and timely for all parties involved in the decisions ICANN influences. Established procedures for a transparent decisionmaking process should be established by the end of this year to ensure ICANN has this as a top priority and as a signal to ensure the industry and constituents involved in ICANN can begin to plan for a process that will be applied equally across all parties and in a predictable fashion.

One concern that has been noted through our congressional oversight hearing is that parties with contractual obligations to ICANN are disadvantaged in providing services that non-ICANN contracted parties are free to offer. There is reason for this discrepancy to exist in an open market. ICANN should take into consideration the entire global Internet industry when making decisions. Disadvantaging contracted parties should be a thing of ICANN's past and new service level agreements should be negotiated with all ICANN participants that allow the rights of a registry and root zone operator to independently determine functionality, pricing and operations of existing services and sue services as part of their new agreement with the Department of Commerce.

The decisionmaking process needs visible criteria and independent arbitration procedures to ensure no party is being unjustly prosecuted by decisions made at the hands of the ICANN board. Ensuring that ICANN is considered a decisionmaker in global economic commerce hinges on their ability to reach agreements with the other international bodies. They have been required in previous memorandums of understanding to reach agreements with the other country code operators. I would call on the Department of Commerce to put a target date in place for ICANN to reach an agreement with a majority of the other country code operators.

The new leadership of both ICANN and at the National Telecommunications Information Administration should be able to take a fresh look at the challenges that lie before ICANN and its partners and bring a more orderly and professionally accountable way of doing business that encourages competition, innovation and stability for the global internet structure.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this amendment provides an additional $292 million for the Indian Health Service. There is no offset.

I don't doubt the numbers the Senator from South Dakota presented. They are factual. I do not doubt his passion for this subject. But let's take a look at what is really happening.

Since we have focused on that, over the last 5 years we have added $725 million funding to the IHS account. In addition, thanks to the work of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we have provided $30 million per year for diabetes efforts. We know that is one of the primary focuses in Indian health for the following 5 years. That amount was increased to a total of $100 million beginning in fiscal year 2001. Reauthorization of this program has ensured that $150 million for the next 5 years will be available beginning in fiscal year 2004. In short, over the last 5 years, well over $1 billion in new money has been provided in order to improve the health care within our Native-American community.

Within the extremely limited resources this subcommittee has been given over the past several years, we have been responsive to the needs of Native Americans and we will continue to make every effort to provide the additional dollars within the overall allocation we were given.

We know well, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know well, what happened last year. Under their leadership, the IHS account was reduced by $75 million in the final hours before markup in order to reduce the subcommittee's allocation. Clinical services alone were reduced by $50 million.

Saying that, despite the decrease, we still have a problem even with the additional moneys we put in this year. We understand the problems in the Indian Health Service. We are $88 million over last year's level, and the adoption of this amendment would exceed the subcommittee's allocation and is subject to a point of order.

The pending amendment No. 1734, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, increases discretionary spending in excess of the 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on Interior of the Appropriations Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302 of the Budget Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Is that agreeable?

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1754, As Modified

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

I yield the floor to my good friend from Michigan.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

I yield the floor to my friend from North Dakota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little Rock Audubon Nature Center

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

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

I am glad to discuss this with my colleague.

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

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

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

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

That is my understanding.

I am glad to discuss this with my colleague.

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

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

I appreciate the interest my colleagues have shown in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' irrigation program. As I have discussed with them in the past, I have similar problems in my own home state of Montana and hope to address them in the near future. Insufficient fee collections and mismanagement have taken their toll on the irrigation systems and both tribal and non-tribal members are now having their livelihoods placed at risk. Unfortunately, within the current Subcommittee allocation we can not even begin to tackle the problem with the current funding levels. I invite my colleagues to work with me in next year's budget process to reform this program and work to provide additional funding specifically for Bureau of Indian Affairs irrigation projects so the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations has the opportunity to begin addressing the problem.

I would be glad to join my colleague from Wyoming in a discussion about this program. The Senate Interior appropriations bill is proposing to fund this program at $40 million and should provide States and private landowners some of the dollars they need to protect and restore habitats on private lands, to benefit federally listed, proposed or candidate species or other species determined to be at- risk, and it provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat protection and restoration. I agree with my colleague from Wyoming that this is an important program for the West, and, if it is implemented properly, it should help States like Wyoming and Montana to maximize local habitat restoration efforts by allowing them to target dollars where they are needed most.

I agree with my colleague that this appears to be a worthy project whose goals of habitat protection and species restoration are consistent with the expressed goals of the Private Landowner's Incentive Program. I believe this is the kind of innovative effort that should be considered for funding by the Department of the Interior and I encourage them to apply for a competitive grant through the LIP program.

I thank the Senator from Vermont and also recognize that Rebuild America can help alleviate the pressure on our transmission grid in the near term. The Department's budget request indicates that every dollar the taxpayer invests in this program gets a return of about $10 in benefits. The program focuses on our schools, hospitals, small communities, and small businesses. It successfully enables the upgrading of millions of square feet per year. I will work with Senators Leahy and Dorgan to improve funding for this program in conference with the House.

I agree that the Zero Energy Buildings program is worthy of support, and I pledge to assist in efforts to provide appropriate funding.

Amendment No. 1725, as Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the Interior appropriations bill move to third reading.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Again, I thank my good friend from North Dakota. We worked very closely on this bill. I think we set a record. Actually, we started last Thursday and everyone shuffled out of town for some reason or other--Isabel or something. But we actually have only worked on this bill--this is Tuesday--we did not have votes yesterday and we got some work done.

I appreciate the Senator's contribution to this bill. His staff has been very good.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on the amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, 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 that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.