DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued; Congressional Record Vol. 149, No. 131
(Senate - September 23, 2003)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S11784-S11826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2004--Continued

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1753

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1753.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike section 333 relating to a special judicial appeals 
 process for cases involving timber harvesting in the Tongass National 
                                Forest)

       Strike section 333.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is to strike 
section 333 from the Interior appropriations bill. Essentially, section 
333 is an anti-environmental rider which would impose a 30-day statute 
of limitations for the public to seek judicial review of certain Forest 
Service timber sales in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. In other 
words, it is putting on very tough time constraints for the public to 
follow if they have a problem with timber sales in the Tongass.
  I want to show you a little bit of what the Tongass Forest looks 
like. I was very fortunate to spend a week in Alaska looking at this 
magnificent park. I think I may well have been right in this area 
depicted in the photo. You can see how magnificent these pictures are 
and why this rider could be so

[[Page S11785]]

damaging. If there was, say, some movement by the Forest Service to cut 
down trees and put roads in here, we want the public to have a chance 
to make their case to a court as to why this is not the right thing to 
do. So that is one photo. I will show you some other photos.
  This photo represents the area we are talking about. As I said, I had 
the joy of being in Alaska to actually see this with my own eyes. It is 
so magnificent there. When I was there, of course, daylight lasted 
until about midnight. You can see this beautiful land.
  I will show you one more beautiful photograph. Again, what we are 
talking about is an anti-environmental rider which would take away the 
public's right to go to court if they believed some of these lands were 
going to be destroyed. The other thing the amendment does is it 
interferes with the ability of the Federal district court to manage its 
docket because that section also puts a deadline on the court. So it 
not only puts a deadline on the people in terms of their inability to 
study timber sales, it says to a judge who may have a very busy docket 
that he or she has to act on this case in 180 days.
  The Tongass National Forest is the last remaining old-growth 
temperate rain forest in the world, spanning nearly 70 acres. You have 
seen it here with some of these beautiful photographs. It is the crown 
jewel of America's natural forests, and conservation is very much in 
the interest of all Americans because it is our land and we are the 
stewards of that land.
  When I was up there, I saw glaciers, mountains, growths of hemlock 
and cedar that grow to be over 200 feet tall. The trees can live as 
long as a thousand years. I am not a person large in stature anyway, 
but when you see some of this beauty and realize how comparatively weak 
we are to the forces of nature, it seems to me when we have a 
magnificent national forest such as this, at the minimum you don't 
change the rules just for this one forest. It does not seem right.

  The species that thrive in this forest include the brown bear--I saw 
some of those--bald eagles--and I saw some of them. I did not see gray 
wolves and wolverines, but I am told they are there. And there are lots 
of salmon.
  We have this temperate rain forest. It is really a jewel. We want to 
make sure that, at the minimum, there is a check and balance in the 
courts if somebody feels or a group feels or a resident feels they are 
not being protected enough.
  We are not telling the court they cannot make a decision that favors 
cutting down trees or building roads. We are just saying don't contract 
the time. It does not seem right.
  I am going to read parts of letters I have seen. This is one from a 
couple who is very upset about this anti-environmental rider. They are 
owners of the Clover Bay Lodge, a fishing lodge on Prince of Wales 
Island in the Tongass. They write:

       We recently received a bad decision from the U.S. Forest 
     Service that will probably mean the end of our very 
     successful fishing lodge business. The Forest Service had no 
     interest in listening to us or others affected by their 
     decisions or even using the correct data regarding our 
     business.

  Then they talk about other elected officials who tried to intercede. 
They said:

       We wrote letters, we had meetings for over 6 years with the 
     Forest Service and came to the same conclusion time and time 
     again: The U.S. Forest Service had the money and the power 
     and the control to force any decision, good or bad, down the 
     taxpayers' throats. So sometimes the courts are the only 
     place left and the people should not be constrained. Please 
     stop this damaging rider, and do not accept any limitations 
     on the American people's right to defend against the actions 
     of the Federal Government.

  This is really important because so many of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle talk about how big Government is bad and we 
shouldn't intrude in private property. Here we have a couple who owns a 
fishing lodge who wants to make a living doing that and says they have 
no other recourse but to go to court. They cannot make headway. With 
this rider, they will be constrained to get their whole act together in 
30 days, and the court will have to act in 180 days. It seems to me not 
right.
  I am going to read another paragraph from a letter written by a group 
of scientists who talk about the Tongass in this fashion:

       Alaska's national forests occur within the Pacific Coast's 
     temperate rainforest ecosystem. Throughout the world, old-
     growth temperate rainforests are rapidly disappearing. Today, 
     the Tongass National Forest represents the largest remaining 
     tracts of old-growth temperate rainforest in the world.

  We are talking about an incredible resource for our Nation.
  They continue:

       Established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the 
     Tongass is the country's largest national forest. . . . 
     Unlike most national forests, both the Tongass and Chugach 
     still encompass many undisturbed watersheds with a full 
     complement of all native species, including productive 
     populations of bald eagles, wolves, brown bears, and 
     five species of anadromous salmon. And we still have much 
     to learn about the unique biodiversity and archeological 
     resources of this forest.

  The reason I took a moment to read this is because this is quite a 
group of people who signed on to this description of this land we are 
trying to protect: Craig Benkman, Ph.D., from New Mexico State 
University; Andrew Hansen, Ph.D, from the Department of Biology, 
Montana State University; Robert Jarvis, Ph.D., Oregon State 
University; David Klein, Ph.D., Institute of Arctic Biology in Alaska; 
Russell Lande, Ph.D., from the University of California, San Diego; 
William Lidicker, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley; Dale 
Mccullough, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley; Sterling Miller, 
Ph.D., Missoula, MT; Paul Paquet, Ph.D., University of Calgary in 
Calgary, Alberta; Roger Powell, Ph.D., from Raleigh, NC; John Ratti, 
Ph.D., University of Idaho; John Schoen, Ph.D., senior scientist at the 
National Audubon Society, Department of Biology and Wildlife, 
University of Alaska Fairbanks; Mark Shaffer, Ph.D., Defenders of 
Wildlife; Christopher Smith, Ph.D., Kansas State University; Richard 
Taber, Ph.D., University of Montana; and Mary Willson, affiliate 
professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, University of Alaska 
Fairbanks.
  The point I am making is, if this is, indeed, a national gift to us, 
why we would want to make special rules for 39 timber sales there 
really escapes me. It just does not seem right, and it does not seem 
fair, and it seems to go against bipartisan support for this 
magnificent place.
  I have read parts of a letter from a fishing lodge owner and I have 
read parts of a letter from scientists who do not want to see this 
damaging rider. I have received another letter from a lodge operator in 
the same area, Larry McQuarrie, who owns Sportsman's Cove Lodge. I ask 
unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Sportsman's Cove Lodge,

                                Ketchikan, AK, September 17, 2003.
     Hon. Senator Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to describe what's at 
     stake if Senator Stevens rider limiting the public's ability 
     to fully defend their interests in timber sale decisions 
     (Sec. 333 of S. 1391) are passed. If this rider passes, my 
     business would be deprived of my rights to defend my 
     commercial interests against actions of the Federal 
     Government. Any limitation of my right to sue is unreasonable 
     because it would curtail my ability to uphold major business 
     interests and protect my business's economic well-being.
       I am the owner of Sportsman's Cove Lodge, which is located 
     in Saltery Cove--an area slated for logging. My business 
     relies on the undeveloped nature of the surrounding area. I 
     assure you that our clientele would be singularly unhappy at 
     the sights and sounds of timber harvest dashing their 
     expectations of wild and pristine Alaska. In most cases they 
     would not return until the activity was over--if at all. 
     While the lodge is filled to capacity every season, it is not 
     because there are clients lined up, beating down our doors. 
     It is because we have learned, like other businesses have, 
     that marketing is the key to success.
       As fishing lodges go, ours is a marketing challenge. We do 
     not have the spectacular King Salmon fishing of the west 
     coast resorts, nor do we have the nearby population centers 
     and draw of the Kenai Peninsula and South Central Alaska. 
     What we do have going for us is excellent service in a 
     beautiful Inside Passage setting. Timber harvest activities, 
     scarred landscapes, log dumps in our cove and in scenic 
     McKenzie inlet, road blasting, helicopters buzzing overhead, 
     and log trucks rumbling across our now pristine backlands 
     would necessitate an increased marketing burden that indeed 
     could very

[[Page S11786]]

     well place our operation in jeopardy. If we lose the one 
     thing that we can always market--the solitude and pristine 
     nature of the surrounding--then we face business failure.
       We have tried to work with the Forest Service to find 
     logging plans that would allow the sale to proceed while not 
     causing problems with our business. Yet the Forest Service 
     has turned a deaf ear to my business concerns and those of 
     other Saltery Cove residents.
       In FY 2000, Sportsman's Cove Lodge grossed just under $1.9 
     million. Payroll for the year was $498,000, Capital 
     investment in the lodge and its associated equipment 
     (including a new $250,000 heated winter boat storage and boat 
     hauling facility in Ketchikan) totals approximately $3.7 
     million. This family business has contributed approximately 
     $1.0 million to the Ketchikan community annually for the past 
     ten years. That contribution is expected to increase for 
     many, many years to come. These are not estimates or 
     projections. These are real numbers of an existing, ongoing, 
     vibrant business that will be in operation far past the 3-4 
     year life of this project. Make no mistake, this business, 
     the 30 seasonal and 8 full time employees, and the financial 
     contributions it makes to the local economy will be seriously 
     at risk if this sale proceeds as planned.
       Forest Service timber sales plans show that logging the 
     Saltery Cove area would generate only a total of 42 
     seasonable timber-related jobs divided up over a period of 5 
     years. This represents direct earnings of $1.99 million, 
     again, not annually, but for the total of the 5-year project 
     lifetime. Almost apologetically, the Forest Service says that 
     this is justified to ``help maintain the capital investment 
     [in existing mills and lodging operations] already in place 
     in several communities.'' By contrast, the payroll for the 
     lodge during the same 5-year period, assuming nothing happens 
     to impact it, will be approximately $2.5 million, and it will 
     not stop at the end of those 5 years.
       Let me state that I am not opposed to the responsible 
     harvest of timber in the Tongass, or anywhere else for that 
     matter. I was born and raised in a community that was heavily 
     dependent upon timber. I understand and appreciate all of the 
     reasons for responsibly harvesting our great renewable forest 
     resources.
       In searching my own soul over these issues I have 
     repeatedly asked myself the question, ``Are the lodge and 
     logging mutually exclusive?'' Sadly, I have come to the 
     conclusion that when the two are in close proximity, they 
     are. I wish that it were not so, but that is the reality. 
     Each one is the antithesis of the other, and no amount of 
     mitigation will resolve the differences other than to 
     physically distance the two. The lodge, is already 
     established in Saltery Cove and cannot be relocated. Logging 
     however is not established, does not make economic sense 
     here, and can go somewhere else.
       If this rider passes, then there is no due process for the 
     lodge or for my neighbors, and my business and community will 
     suffer major and unnecessary economic harm. Ordinary Alaskan 
     businessmen should be allowed to sue to protect our business 
     and economic interests. Please take actions to remove Sec. 
     333 from the Interior Appropriations bill.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                               Larry G. McQuarrie,
                                    Owner, Sportsman's Cove Lodge.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Mr. McQuarrie, who owns the Sportsman's 
Cove Lodge, says:

       This family business has contributed approximately $1.0 
     million to the Ketchi-
     kan community annually for the past ten
     years . . .
       If the rider passes, then there is no due process for the 
     lodge or for my neighbors, and my business and community will 
     suffer major and unnecessary economic harm.

  Let's look at Chomley Sound again. That is where this lodge is 
located. We can see it is magnificent, but it is unprotected, and it is 
on Prince of Wales Island in the southern Tongass. We can see how 
unbelievable this forest is. This small businessman is saying he is 
going to suffer irreparable harm if he cannot protect this area. What 
sometimes gets lost is there are so many who seem to say the only way 
we are going to make money, to lift the economy, is to go after 
resources--cut down trees and drill for oil. Of course, we need to do 
that in areas where it makes sense, but I am here to say that when you 
go in to an area that is as magnificent as this forest, the whole 
economic potential revolves around tourism. I saw that when I was in 
Alaska. It was a pretty wonderful trip.
  The bottom line is, if there were a lot of trees being cut down and 
noise being made, we would lose the wildlife and we would lose the 
tourism. That is why I oppose this rider that I think is completely 
unnecessary.
  I do not have much else to say except I think it is a bad rider and 
interferes with the judiciary, which I don't think is our job to do. It 
says to the court: You must hear this in so many days. A lot of us know 
the courts are backed up. There are a lot of people waiting for 
justice, whether it is one business suing another or somebody has a 
problem. Now we are saying go to the head of the class. You get to go 
to the head of the line if you want to cut down trees or build a road 
in one of these areas or there is a question about any of these timber 
sales.
  We encourage courts to move quickly, but it seems to me we don't want 
to force them to have to act on one particular case in a certain number 
of days. It doesn't seem fair to me, and I don't think this section 
solves any problem.
  The last lawsuit challenging a Tongass timber sale was 4 years ago. 
It is not like this is a pressing problem. There are no pressing 
problems challenging or enjoining the timber sales in Tongass, and 
timber companies on the Tongass have a huge backlog of timber under 
contract to be cut. As a matter of fact, they have about 300 million 
board feet left to be cut. They only logged 34 million board feet last 
year. So it is hard to understand why we have to make this rule for a 
problem that doesn't seem to exist. Yet it would take away a 
fundamental right of judicial review for timber sales in Alaska.
  Maybe there is some good reason this should be done. I have been 
trying to figure it out myself. Maybe they actually want to reopen 
these sales. I don't know what it is. But I can say I have looked up 
and down to figure out what is going on. We have people here who are 
very nervous. They don't want to see a series of attacks continue on 
the Tongass National Forest. We had an attack last year. I spoke out in 
opposition to it. And we have it again this year.
  Once again, I hope we strike this rider from the bill and assure the 
public is given an opportunity to seek judicial review, and that the 
judicial system is not unjustly hindered. The beauty of our country is 
the checks and balances that we have. All of us learn that when we go 
to school, in the sixth grade, eighth grade, high school, college--the 
checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative 
branch, and the courts. When Congress starts standing up and saying: 
Judge, you have to hear a particular case in 180 days and, people, you 
better get your act together, get your case together in 30 days, in my 
view, this is really interfering in the rights of the people we 
represent and interfering in the duties of the courts.
  Once again, feast your eyes on this magnificent area. It was my joy 
to be there for 7 days. I will never forget that trip. The last thing I 
want to see happen is to weaken the protections we have afforded this 
temperate rain forest that is so magnificent.
  It honestly takes your breath way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for some other 
presenters, speakers on the amendments that are pending, I ask 
unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes, and ask 
it appear in the morning business section of today's Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to address the pending Boxer 
amendment. Is that still the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending question.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this provision which Senator Boxer seeks 
to strike--which I call the expedited judicial review provision--has 
been misconstrued by the Senator from California. Let me give you first 
a little history of the Tongass Forest.
  In 1917 this forest was established, 17 million acres. It is the 
largest national forest in the United States. It encompasses over 80 
percent of all of southeastern Alaska, which is roughly the size of New 
England.

[[Page S11787]]

  In 1947, the Tongass Act set aside an allowable sale quantity level 
of 1.38 billion board feet per year. Let me repeat that--1.38 billion 
board feet per year.
  In 1959, as part of the Statehood Act, there was an allowable sale 
quantity level established at 1.3 billion board feet per year.
  Congress continued to review the Tongass. In 1971, the Alaska Native 
Land Claims Settlement Act set what we called the ASQ--the allowable 
sale quantity--level at 950 million board feet.
  In 1980, that was reduced to 250 million board feet. Under the law, 
we call it ANICA--the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act--from 
1980 to 1987, the average volume of timber sold and harvested per year 
in the Tongass was 280 million board feet per year.
  In 1990, the Tongass Timber Reform Act set the ASQ at 440 million 
board feet. That act also directed the Forest Service to provide a 
supply of timber to meet the market demand.
  But in 1997, Congress further reduced the level to 260 million board 
feet. That was through the Tongass land management plan. We call it the 
TLMP process.
  So today only 676,000 acres of the 17 million acres in the Tongass 
National Forest is currently available for timber or timber harvesting 
for the timber industry. That is from the largest national forest in 
the United States.
  Due to litigation, only 34 million board feet in total was cut in 
2002.
  This forest once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Now the lumber jobs 
have been reduced by 50 percent. Some of them work for independent 
operators or outside of the national forest on Native land. But 99 
percent of the jobs associated with the processing of timber, 
particularly the pulp industry, have been eliminated.
  In 2001, the timber industry had about 2,000 workers--again, a lot of 
them not on Federal land--with an annual payroll of $108 million.
  The Senator from California represents a State that also has national 
forests. In California, there is a healthy and robust timber industry. 
Over 259 million board feet of timber was harvested in 2002 on 10 
million acres of California land. In 2001, the timber industry 
supported 110,000 jobs with $3.4 billion in annual payroll.

  Despite the rhetoric of the Senator from California, my amendment 
does not cripple the public's due process at all. It seeks to deal with 
the lawsuits pertaining to timber sales in the Alaska region and the 
way they have been handled by those who oppose cutting timber in Alaska 
but support cutting timber in a national forest half the size of one of 
Alaska's forests, the Tongass Forest. Lawsuits pertaining to timber 
sales are filed in a way that delays the process through the 
administrative courts, then through the Federal courts. By the time 
they are through, they are not harvesting.
  My amendment provides that suits be filed in Alaska District Court 
within 30 days after the administrative appeals have been exhausted, or 
30 days after enactment of this act. It directs the District Court of 
Alaska to render a decision within 180 days of the date the lawsuit was 
filed. We are dealing with judicial process, not environmental process, 
not the rights of individuals, but abuse, primarily from lawyers from 
California who file these lawsuits in Alaska. If the court has not 
rendered its decision, the provision in this bill authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to petition the court to proceed with the 
action.
  The timber sales at issue are subject to an intense public review 
process. For each timber sale, a notice of intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement is published. The environmental impact 
statement is prepared, which generally takes 2 to 3 years. Each one of 
them costs $1 to $3 million. The draft EIS is issued, at which time 
there is a public comment period. The final EIS is then issued which 
addresses the public comments and makes any necessary changes.
  Again, the public is invited to comment on the final EIS. Once that 
extensive review process is completed, a record of decision is released 
which stipulates the conditions under which the timber sale may 
proceed. My amendment does not cover that part of this process at all. 
There is no limitation put upon the administrative side at all.
  If the public has additional concerns, they have an opportunity to 
appeal the record of decision administratively to the Forest Service. 
Invariably that happens. An appeal is made to the Forest Service. After 
that appeal, there is what we call the record of decision. Of the last 
36 records of decision, 32 were administratively appealed.
  Despite the extensive environmental review, public participation, and 
administrative use, lawsuits are still filed. Of the 32 claims 
administratively appealed, 9 have been litigated. It takes an average 
of 2 years from the time the complaint is filed in district court until 
a final judgment is reached, and then it is usually by the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals in California.
  These lawsuits add enormously to the expense of the taxpayers. They 
have a devastating effect on the men and women involved in the timber 
industry in my State. This process can take between 4 and 7 years 
before a single tree is harvested under a contract that authorizes 
harvesting of the timber. My provision does not limit access to the 
judicial system, nor does it impair the rights of those seeking 
judicial review of records of decisions. It does not affect the 
environmental process. It does not affect the public's right to 
comment. There is no time line for filing appeals to the district 
court's decision. That would be the Ninth Circuit.

  This provision merely ensures there will be timely consideration of 
this equal process that is fair to environmental groups, the Forest 
Service, and men and women of my State who rely upon the timber 
industry for their livelihood. We merely set a time line for the 
judicial review of records of decision that have been made after the 
administrative process has been completed. That normally takes 1 to 2 
years. Each of these is then appealed to the courts, the district 
courts, but there is no requirement now that those appeals be filed on 
a timely basis. This requires that within 30 days after the decision, 
there has to be a decision whether they will appeal. If they appeal, 
the district court must render the decision within 180 days. After 
that, they have the right to consider the process and appeal to the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals if they wish. As a practical matter, we 
have eliminated the basic area where delay has taken place.
  Again, let me point out, what we are seeking to do is to require that 
this judicial review process be expedited. That is a fair way to handle 
this process which has been so abused by these lawyers. I am a 
California lawyer, incidentally. California lawyers in my day did not 
act the way these guys are acting; I can state that right now. This 
says if you take an appeal from the Forest Service--mind you, they are 
after public hearings on the EIS, they are after public hearings and 
comments, and after administrative appeals to the Forest Service; and 
then the time for the basic delay. After they fail to file appeals, 
delay, delay, and delay, and they get to the court and the court 
delays. This is relieving the delay in the courts and relieving the 
delay in filing the appeal from the administrative court.
  I urge that the motion to strike of the Senator from California be 
eliminated. Today these lawyers have 6 years within which to file that 
complaint after it has gone through the process of two public hearings, 
administrative appeal. For the record of decision, they can wait up to 
6 years to file for review of the record of decision. This is, as far 
as I am concerned, a defect in the administrative process for judicial 
review. That is all we are dealing with.
  We do not affect environmental rights. We do not affect the right to 
appeal. All we say is, you have to do it within a timely period. The 
district court must act within a timely period so we can tell whether 
the contracts that have been issued and approved by the Forest Service 
can be carried out by those who seek to make a living off harvesting 
the small amount of timber still available from forests in my State.
  I point out the inconsistency of the Senator from California in 
complaining about relieving this process, the delay in this judicial 
process, when in the State of California they harvest an enormous 
amount of timber from an area that is less than half the size of our 
national forests. Surely the people of the State of California would 
understand that if a decision is made, the

[[Page S11788]]

small amount of Alaska's timber area, 676,000 acres in the Tongass 
Forest, is available for harvesting, there has to be certainty in the 
review process so the economics of the timber industry will be sound.
  I urge defeat of the motion to strike of the Senator from California 
and I move to table that amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I intend to speak on the Reid amendment 
and I would ask what the pending business is.
  Mr. BURNS. The order of business now is the Boxer amendment. We have 
set aside some time for the Senator to speak on the outsourcing 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Alaska making a motion?
  Mr. STEVENS. I did inquire whether the Senator from Washington was 
seeking to speak on the Boxer amendment. I made a motion to table the 
Boxer amendment and ask unanimous consent that the time for the vote on 
my motion be determined by the leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1731

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Reid that temporarily bars the Department 
of the Interior from spending any more money on competitive sourcing 
studies.
  The House has already inserted this language into its Interior 
spending bill, and I hope the Senate will do the same.
  This amendment is critical so we can assure the people who visit our 
already overstressed national parks that they will not be subjected to 
even fewer services. ``Competitive sourcing'' is a new term that has 
been created to describe the opening up of public sector jobs to 
private sector competition. Now, we have all been told that competitive 
sourcing is not the same as outsourcing, but I think it is pretty safe 
to say it is not a whole lot different.
  As all of us know, one of the primary goals of this current 
administration is to privatize large numbers of Federal workers. This 
administration, under its initial outsourcing policy, mandated that 
each Federal agency review for privatization no less than 15 percent of 
its commercial activities by the end of fiscal year 2003. 
Unfortunately, this onerous and apparently arbitrary privatization 
quota did not take into account the different agencies' unique 
conditions.
  After a lot of pressure from Federal workers, environmentalists, and 
labor groups, the White House finally abandoned its original blanket 
competitive sourcing scheme. But now the initial plan has been replaced 
by a new plan that actually pushes for more outsourcing, not less.
  Although there is no concrete timeline, this new incentive-based plan 
encourages Federal agencies to outsource 50 percent or more of their 
commercial activities. So while we in Congress are trying to slow down 
this outsourcing drive, the administration is now working to speed it 
up.
  So what does that mean for an agency such as the National Park 
Service? I am very concerned that the President's outsourcing policy 
may well cause critically needed maintenance funds in our parks to be 
spent, instead, on further studies for competitive sourcing.
  In my home State of Washington, we are very concerned about the 
reports that Mount Rainier National Park, for instance, could possibly 
have to divert up to 40 percent of its repair budget due to this 
outsourcing and antiterrorism requirements. So when they were faced 
with this possibility, the National Park Service director at Mount 
Rainier promised that at Mount Rainier no more outsourcing studies 
would be conducted using 2003 and 2004 dollars. This comes as a great 
relief to the users of Mount Rainier National Park and the surrounding 
communities, but now everyone is asking, What about Olympic National 
Park? What about Cascade National Park? Those are national treasures 
that are in my home State. And what about all the other national parks 
across the country that remain vulnerable to this proposal?
  Outsourcing is by no means a new policy for the Department of 
Interior, especially in the National Park Service. The Park Service, in 
fact, currently outsources nearly $2 billion in services, including 
over $800 million in concessions and over $1 billion for contractors.
  Those contractors currently provide functions such as janitorial 
services, tree work, garbage pickup, construction, and management 
consulting--things like that. So when the Department of Interior is now 
told to outsource up to 50 percent of its commercial responsibilities, 
we are very concerned that some of the National Park Service's key 
functions are going to be threatened.
  The Park Service, as we all know, was initially created to preserve 
the natural and cultural resources of the Park System and to provide 
recreational opportunities for generations of Americans. The last thing 
we should be doing is lessening the agency's ability to do just that.

  The amendment now before the Senate, that was offered by the Senator 
from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will not completely stop all outsourcing 
efforts. It will simply slow them down. I believe that is the right 
thing to do.
  So far, in the case of the Department of Interior, OMB's outsourcing 
initiative has been on the fast track. The Reid amendment will simply 
prevent funds from this year from being used to initiate any new 
studies for competitive sourcing. It will, however, still allow the 
studies initiated with money from the last 2 years to be completed. I 
think that is the right course to take.
  Slowing down this outsourcing initiative will allow us in Congress to 
have the time to analyze the costs and implications of this 
administration's proposal--I believe something we should have done in 
the first place.
  The National Park Service is truly a mission-driven organization. Its 
core responsibilities include promoting the highest level of 
environmental stewardship, and, in turn, providing the best possible 
service to each and every park visitor.
  So far, as we all know, the Park Service has done a tremendous job of 
doing just that. Consistently, 97 percent of our national park visitors 
have indicated they are ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied'' with their 
national park experience. A lot of this public regard is attributed to 
the high quality and high morale of our Park Service employees.
  Historically, National Park Service workers have maintained an 
extremely high level of camaraderie and positive spirit. Often these 
wonderful employees of ours are called upon to perform multiple duties 
that fall outside any one particular job title. It is not uncommon, in 
our national parks, for a maintenance worker to give interpretive talks 
on the weekends, or a park geologist to perform first aid, when it is 
necessary, or for a visitor assistant to help in fighting forest fires.
  This kind of overlap of job duties is possible because of the way in 
which Park Service employees are currently cross-trained and because of 
the workers' extraordinary commitment to their jobs. In my opinion, 
having these kinds of outcomes with 9-to-5 contract workers would be 
very unlikely.
  All of the implications of the President's policy of outsourcing in 
the National Park Service are not yet known or understood by those who 
use the parks or by Members of Congress who are passing this 
legislation. I think Congress has yet to carefully consider the 
consequences of this policy, especially when it comes to the services 
we expect for our families when they visit our national parks.
  I am on the floor of the Senate today to thank Senator Reid for 
putting this amendment forward, and I urge the Members of the Senate to 
follow the House and slow down the President's outsourcing policy to 
protect the core mission of the National Park Service by voting for the 
Reid amendment, and then thoroughly taking the time to analyze and 
understand how this will impact our incredible heritage at our national 
parks before we move forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last week I proposed an amendment to this 
bill

[[Page S11789]]

that would prevent the administration from privatizing parts of the 
Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies.
  I would like to submit for the Record some statements supporting my 
amendment. These are from the National Parks Conservation Association, 
the Wilderness Society, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 
and the American Federation of Government Employees.
  These organizations support my amendment because they share my belief 
that our National Parks and National Forests are public treasures that 
should be managed for posterity, not for profit.
  Their letters cite many reasons why privatizing the operation of our 
National Parks and Forests would reduce the quality of maintenance and 
service.
  As the letter from the Wilderness Society points out, the director of 
the National Parks Service wrote an internal memo warning that the 
administration's privatization policy could reduce visitor services, 
and cause layoffs of Parks Service workers.
  These organizations realize that if we lose dedicated foresters, fire 
fighters, archaeologists and scientists, we will lose valuable 
knowledge about our precious public lands.
  Protecting our National Parks and Forests is not just a job for these 
dedicated workers; it is a way of life. No job description can do 
justice to their dedication.
  Just last month at Shenandoah National Park, a search team of four 
Park Service employees found a 10-year-old boy who was lost.
  Today, the Park Service is reviewing their jobs, trying to determine 
whether they ought to be turned over to private contractors. Trying 
telling that little boy's parents that it isn't important to have 
workers who are familiar with our parks and forests.
  These are some of the reasons that these organizations are opposed to 
privatization. There is another reason, which ought to concern every 
Member of this Senate. That is the unauthorized expenditure of public 
funds. It is our job as legislators to direct public funds to agencies 
and projects that will serve a public need. Congress has never 
authorized funds for outsourcing studies.
  The Forest Service spent $10 million just last year on its 
outsourcing studies, 10 million that Congress had designated for 
preserving and protecting our national treasures. The Park Service has 
estimated that it could spend $3 million just to hire consultants. 
President Bush made a campaign promise to eliminate the $4.9 billion 
maintenance backlog that existed in the Park Service when he took 
office. That backlog is now estimated at $6.1 billion. Meanwhile, the 
Park Service has diverted funds from maintenance projects to conduct 
studies about outsourcing.
  In the Pacific West region, several projects are being put off to pay 
for security measures and outsourcing, including: removing asbestos 
from old buildings in Yellowstone National Park, seismic safety 
rehabilitation for 18 buildings in Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area, and upgrading the sewage lagoon at Crater Lake National Park. 
These projects would protect our parks and visitors. That's why 
Congress set aside money for them.
  Just because a private contractor knows how to run a business doesn't 
mean he knows how to take care of our public parks. A few years ago, 
one park needed five new courtesy docks on a lake. The lowest bidding 
contractor designed metal docks for an area where temperatures in the 
summer reach 115 to 120 degrees. Metal docks would have burned 
visitors, so the design had to be thrown out. That wasted $21,000, and 
only two docks could be built with the remaining funds.
  In another incident, public workers used to handle their own garbage 
collection, at a cost of about $150,000 a year. Then they contracted it 
out. Six years later, the cost is about $500,000 a year. It is no 
wonder that environmentalists, park visitors, and public employees are 
so concerned about the effect this policy is having on our public 
resources. The Bureau of Land Management just wasted $60,000 to study 
26 positions in two States. The BLM employees won their competitions.
  In all, BLM will spend almost $2 million this year to show the 
administration that its employees are the most capable and efficient to 
do their jobs. The public servants at BLM don't need an expensive 
consultant to prove their commitment to preserving our public 
resources; they prove it every day. Congress doesn't need that, either. 
That is why we never voted for it
  Ten million dollars in the Forest Service, $3 million in the Park 
Service, $12 million in BLM, and next year it will be more--unless we 
stop it.
  Article I of the Constitution requires Congress, not the President, 
to authorize and appropriate funds. The administration is bypassing 
Congress to implement its own agenda and is using unauthorized funds to 
do it. We work hard to make sure we fund projects that are in the best 
interest of the taxpayers. The administration wants to take away that 
role. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in doing our 
duty as United States Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       National Parks Conservation


                                                  Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than 300,000 members of 
     the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), we urge 
     you to support the Reid amendment to the FY 2004 Interior 
     Appropriations Act, which forestalls the Administration's 
     effort that could privatize more than half of the National 
     Park Service workforce.
       The House passed a bipartisan provision sponsored by 
     Interior appropriations chairman Charles Taylor (R-NC) that 
     slows the initiative that is already harming one of the most 
     beloved institutions of American government--the National 
     Park Service. The Park Service, comprised of some of the most 
     dedicated and underpaid public servants in our nation, is the 
     guardian of our most precious natural and cultural treasures. 
     Our collective American heritage should not be placed at risk 
     by a politically driven, inside-the-beltway top-down strategy 
     that places the guardianship of our parks in the hands of the 
     lowest bidder without regard for the impact on the values 
     embodied by our national parks.
       Outsourcing is an appropriate tool when appropriately used. 
     But that's not what the administration is doing. Although 
     Clay Johnson III, OMB's deputy director for management, 
     argued recently that the administration is interested in 
     allowing contracting on work that is ``really, really 
     commercial,'' such as food service, check processing, and 
     other similar functions, the thousands of Park Service 
     positions the administration has defined as commercial 
     include archaeologists, biologists, museum curators, masons, 
     and other workers who serve park visitors, educate school 
     groups, and protect the parks for future generations.
       A few points to consider: The Park Service is spending 
     millions of dollars to fund, competitive sourcing efforts 
     without authorization from the appropriations committee, and 
     at the expense of the enormous pressing fiscal needs of the 
     parks; No study has been undertaken about the extensive 
     outsourcing that has already occurred in the National Park 
     Service, to determine the cumulative impact of the 
     administration's proposals. Privatization could adversely 
     impact the diversity of the Park Service as well as the 
     quality of local jobs available in many areas; Protection of 
     our national parks is a way of life for the National Park 
     Service, not just a job. The esprit-de-corps of the Park 
     Service is something businesses try to emulate, not something 
     that should be easily discarded or put at risk; The Reid 
     amendment does not prevent the Department of the Interior 
     from contracting out services or existing outsourcing 
     studies. Interior agencies retain the ability to hire 
     contractors to supplement the existing federal employee 
     workforce.
       A vote for the Reid amendment is a vote to protect our 
     national parks, and we will consider using this significant 
     vote in our biennial ``Friend of the National Parks'' 
     scorecard for the 108th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas C. Kiernan,
     President.
                                  ____


 The Wilderness Society--Support the Reid Amendment To Protect Jobs in 
                       the National Park Service

       Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has filed an amendment to the 
     FY04 Interior Appropriations bill that provides protection 
     for National Park Service employees' jobs. The language in 
     the Park Service section of the bill reads . . .
       ``None of the funds in this act can be used to initiate any 
     new competitive sourcing studies.''
       This is the exact language that the House Subcommittee on 
     Interior Appropriations added as a bipartisan provision 
     earlier this summer. The provision protects the National Park 
     Service (NPS) from losing some of its most skilled employees. 
     The Office of Management and Budget has imposed an onerous 
     quota on all agencies to review for privatization 15% of 
     their ``commercial'' activities by the end of this year. This 
     assault on dedicated park employees applies regardless of its 
     impact on the agency.

[[Page S11790]]

       The Park Service has the potential to lose irreplaceable 
     institutional knowledge of dedicated park scientists, 
     archeologists, architects, curators, engineers, fire 
     fighters, and laborers . . . jobs considered to be 
     ``commercial'' in nature.
       The Reid amendment limits the use of funds for competitive 
     sourcing studies to those already initiated in fiscal years 
     2002 and 2003. At this point the Park Service has already 
     expended $2 to $3 million on privatization studies at the 
     expense of funding daily operations within the parks!
       An internal memo penned by NPS Director Mainella as 
     reported in an April 19 Los Angeles Times article says this 
     policy could reduce visitor services and cause unexpected 
     layoffs, as well as undermine the agency's efforts to create 
     a more ethnically diverse work force.
       For further information contact: Sue Gunn, Director, 
     National Park Program, (202) 429-2676.

     
                                  ____
                                                National Trust for


                                        Historic Preservation,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: Congress chartered the National Trust 
     for Historic Preservation more than 50 years ago to protect 
     America's irreplaceable historic and cultural treasures 
     including those that are part of the country's great 
     inventory of federal lands. As a private nonprofit 
     organization with more than a quarter million members, the 
     National Trust is the leader of a vigorous preservation 
     movement that is having the best of our past for the future. 
     Because of our concern for the welfare of the nation's 
     historic and cultural resources, we urge you to support 
     Senator Reid's amendment to the Interior appropriations bill 
     that would place a temporary hold on the large-scale 
     privatization effort already underway at the Department of 
     Interior and related agencies--especially within the National 
     Park Service and the Forest Service. This privatization 
     effort would outsource many of the professional and expert 
     responsibilities now performed by federal employees.
       The National Trust supports a similar bipartisan provision 
     that is now part of the House version of the bill. It would 
     withhold FY'04 funds from the rampant privatization program 
     so that Congress can make a comprehensive assessment of 
     outsourcing's effects on the important work performed by 
     scientists, archeologists, architects, curators, engineers, 
     fire fighters, and laborers. Before advancing headlong into 
     this initiative, Congress would have an ``in-depth report'' 
     on the results of pending privatization efforts including 
     information related to ``specific schedules, plans, and cost 
     estimates for implementing [the privatization initiative].'' 
     The Department's FY'02 and FY'03 privatization work in 
     progress would be unaffected by the provision.
       The Interior Department and related agencies have been 
     under intense pressure to privatize key programs because of 
     an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) government-wide 
     quota that requires all agencies to review 15 percent of 
     their ``commercial'' activities for privatization by the 
     close of this fiscal year. OMB is applying this quota 
     regardless of the effect on the government's responsibility 
     to all Americans who depend on efficient and reliable 
     service. Last year Congress was so concerned about OMB 
     proceeding too hastily that it included a reporting 
     requirement in the FY'03 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. So far, 
     however, OMB has not provided any research or analysis to 
     justify the quota as it quickly progresses on outsourcing 
     positions and imposes sanctions on agencies that fail to 
     fulfill the quota. Those penalties are severe, ranging from 
     arbitrary reductions in staff to punitive budget cuts.
       The National Trust, like many Republican and Democratic 
     lawmakers on Capitol Hill, is concerned by the scale, lack of 
     methodology, and expense associated with this initiative, 
     which comes at a time when federal budgets are declining and 
     resources are thin. Congress and the public need more time to 
     assess the process adequately, and fully understand the costs 
     and implications of the decisions being made before 
     outsourcing diverts governmental staff from high-priority 
     assignments, consumes funding that is directed towards 
     mission-essential requirements, and undermines efforts to 
     ensure that the federal workforce reflects the American 
     people in its diversity.
       Services provided by the federal government should always 
     include a mix of public and private sector resources where 
     appropriate. Contractors can play a valuable role in an 
     agency's mission to service the American public. OMB's 
     privatization quota, however, is forcing the Interior 
     Department and other agencies to privatize services without 
     heed to the full effects on safeguarding the nation's 
     historic and cultural treasures. The National Trust asks you 
     to support Senator Reid's amendment to the Interior 
     appropriations bill and take a more measured approach to 
     outsourcing those federal responsibilities best performed by 
     governmental staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Richard Moe.

     
                                  ____
                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American federation of 
     Government Employees, which represents more than 600,000 
     federal employees who serve the American people across the 
     nation and around the world, I urge you to supoprt the Reid 
     Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill that would 
     temporarily suspend new privatization studies in the 
     Department of Interior and related agencies. These 
     privatization studies have been ordered by the Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB), regardless of need or impact on 
     those agencies' services, in order to fulfill a wholly 
     political privatization quota.
       The Reid Amendment is identical to language that was 
     earlier included in the House Interior Appropriations Bill by 
     Chairman Charles Taylor (R-NC). The Taylor provision was 
     inspired by the diversion of staff and resources to conduct 
     costly privatization reviews instead of fulfilling agencies' 
     missions, even if that meant not eliminating longstanding 
     maintenance backlogs in the National Park Service or 
     protecting Forest Service lands from the scourge of fire.
       We appreciate the leadership of Senate Interior 
     Appropriations Committee Chairman Conrad Burns (R-Mt) in 
     defunding all new and ongoing privatization studies in the 
     Forest Service without Congressional approval. However, the 
     same problems caused by OMB's wholesale privatization effort 
     in the Forest Service are adversely affecting all agencies 
     funded under the Interior Appropriations Bill. Moreover, the 
     Reid Amendment strikes a fair balance in that it allows 
     ongoing privatization reviews to continue but suspends new 
     ones until the Congress has a better understanding of OMB's 
     extremely controversial wholesale privatization initiative.
       That the recently revised OMB Circular A-76, which governs 
     the rules for privatization, has been tilted dangerously in 
     favor of contractors, is no longer subject to dispute. In 
     fact, the House of Representatives, in bipartisan fashion, 
     recently passed an amendment to the Transportation and 
     Treasury Appropriations Bill that would completely defund the 
     new A-76 and force OMB to craft a more fair and balanced 
     process, one that exalts the interests of taxpayers and every 
     American who depends on the federal government for important 
     services, not contractors.
       Among the many flaws, the new privatization process denies 
     federal employees opportunities to submit their best bids in 
     most competitions, fails to require contractors to at least 
     promise appreciable savings before taking work from federal 
     employees, and doesn't ensure that a subjective and 
     unprecedented privatization process is first tested and 
     evaluated in the limited context of information technology 
     before it is used across-the-board on all services, as was 
     required by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John 
     Warner in this year's defense authorization bill, instead of 
     using it across-the-board on all services, as would be 
     allowed by the new A-76.
       Despite OMB's professed determination to ensure 
     competition, the new circular requires federal employees to 
     be subject to public-private competitions to perform new 
     work, to be recompeted in the event of failure to perform, 
     and be automatically recompeted every five years except in 
     isolated circumstances. In those same circumstances, no such 
     competition or recompetition requirements apply to 
     contractors. And although OMB is determined to review for 
     outsourcing at least 416,000 federal employee jobs, no 
     contractor jobs are scheduled to be reviewed for insourcing.
       At the same time, the new circular appears to give the 
     interests of taxpayers short shrift. The rewritten A-76 makes 
     no changes of any significance with respect to the 
     administration of contracts. Moreover, despite the imposition 
     of the privatization quota, OMB provides already overwhelmed 
     agencies with no new resources to conduct fair competitions 
     and satisfactorily administer resulting contracts. In 
     addition, the new A-76 does little to encourage the use of 
     alternatives to A-76 that can generate superior savings--but 
     without the significant costs and wrenching controversies 
     associated with privatization reviews. And despite the 
     documented disproportionately adverse impact on women and 
     minorities who are part of the civil service, a particular 
     problem in the National Parks Service, according to the 
     Director, the new circular does nothing to ensure that the 
     OMB privatizaiton initiative does not force federal agencies 
     to turn the clock back on diversity and inclusiveness in the 
     civil service.
       Finally, we note that the new A-76 does not discourage 
     contracting out from being undertaken in order to undercut 
     the pay and benefits of those who work for the federal 
     government. The Senate recently passed, without opposition, 
     an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would 
     exclude health care costs from the cost comparison process if 
     a contractor provides inferior health care benefits. The new 
     A-76 fails to take that approach.
       Again, AFGE, standing proudly with many different 
     environmental groups, urges Senators to support the Reid 
     Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill and prevent 
     privatization from polluting the agencies that the American 
     people have entrusted to safeguard our nation's most valuable 
     natural treasurers. Please contact John Threlkeld in AFGE's 
     Legislative Department at (202) 639-6413 if you have any 
     questions about our position on this important matter.
           Sincerely yours,
     Beth Moten,

[[Page S11791]]

       Director, Legislation & Political Action Department.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Washington leaves 
the floor, I would like to say it was only recently that I had the 
opportunity to see some of the natural beauty of the State of 
Washington. I, of course, had been to Seattle a number of times--the 
airport, went into town, and left. But I had the opportunity, within 
the past couple of months, to see various parts of Washington.
  I will never forget the drive from Pasco, WA, to Seattle over the 
great Cascades. Those mountains and trees, the forests are so much 
different than the forests of Nevada. We are very proud of the great 
treasures we have around Lake Tahoe and other forests we have in 
Nevada. But the Cascades are in a different class, with totally 
different kinds of trees, different forests.
  That is what the Forest Service is all about, having these people, 
who sign on to the Forest Service for life, to be the guardians and 
protectors of these great national treasures such as those around Lake 
Tahoe and those beautiful Cascades that I drove through.
  To think we are considering putting these great national treasures 
out for profit rather than posterity frightens me. I appreciate very 
much the Senator from Washington standing up for the great Cascades. I 
am sure there are other beautiful parks in the State of Washington that 
you have described here that are as beautiful as I can imagine. But I 
want the Senator from Washington to know--and everyone within the sound 
of my voice--I was so impressed driving through those Cascades.
  I repeat, I hope--and I know there is going to be efforts made to 
second degree this amendment because the majority is afraid of an up-
or-down vote because we will win an up-or-down vote because people of 
both parties do not want to put these national treasures up for bid. 
What they are going to do is offer some kind of an amendment saying: 
Well, we have studied them. Let's get a report. And we will go ahead 
and continue doing the studies around Lake Mead, around the areas the 
Senator from Washington pointed out.
  The reason this is such a calculated effort to hurt our parks is that 
they are taking money, as I outlined earlier, that has been set aside 
by congressional votes to take away the asbestos we have in some of our 
park facilities, to do work on sewers, and a lot of other things. They 
are taking money from that and studying whether it is a good idea to 
privatize. That is wrong. If they were going to do it the right way, 
they would come before Congress and say: We want to study what is going 
on in our national parks. Appropriate money for us.
  They are doing indirectly what they know they can't do directly.
  I hope everyone understands that this second-degree amendment, which 
will be offered shortly, is only an effort to help those who want to 
defeat this amendment to, in effect, get well by saying: Well, we voted 
for a study and the President has to report on these studies.
  I want everyone to know a vote for this second-degree amendment--it 
may be a side-by-side amendment--is a vote to allow the outsourcing, 
the privatizing of the workforce of our national parks.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I heard the Senator from Nevada 
correctly, am I to understand there is going to be a second-degree 
amendment to his amendment that I just spoke about that will 
essentially allow the outsourcing to continue while we move forward in 
the appropriations process this year? If that is the case, I ask the 
Senator from Nevada, if you are a park employee in one of our beautiful 
parks--and you referenced the Cascades; we have Olympia National Park, 
Mt. Rainier. I invite all of our colleagues to come and see--if you 
were an employee and you knew Congress was going to continue to move 
forward with this proposal or some type of variation, would you not be 
worried that you would not continue to do the same good job that our 
employees do right now because really your future is up in the air and 
you would be looking for something else?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Washington that 
this second-degree amendment, which I haven't seen but I have been told 
what is in it, would basically allow the outsourcing studies to go on. 
And they have no money to do that so they are robbing other programs to 
do it. So the answer to the Senator's question is, yes, they would 
continue doing the outsourcing studies, as they call them, in an effort 
to privatize the workforce in the national parks.
  There is a handout that has been distributed. When you can't defeat a 
measure on its face, what you resort to is name-calling. Here is what 
they have written:

       Now is not the time to promote inefficiency. The Reid 
     amendment would support the Federal employees union agenda to 
     grow the size of the Federal workforce and avoid competition 
     of any kind.

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

  It has everything to do with protecting a dedicated workforce and to 
not put these employees out to minimum wage. That is in effect what it 
is. I know what we will do as we do in all of these privatizing 
methods: We will come in with a low-ball figure. We can do it so much 
cheaper. And then as soon as the contract is entered, it balloons. I 
gave an example this morning. One of the parks was picking up garbage. 
It cost $150,000. They put it out for private bid. And now within 3 
years time it is a half a million dollars for the same work Government 
employees were doing.
  I appreciate very much the support of my friend from Washington. 
Again, I recognize her ability to support working men and women and not 
corporate America. I do know the Senator from Washington has done a 
great job of protecting the corporations in her State. But here is an 
issue that deals directly with working men and women. And, of course, 
the Senator from Washington has sided with the working men and women of 
our country.


                Amendment No. 1754 To Amendment No. 1731

     (Purpose: To substitute a requirement for an annual report on 
  competitive sourcing activities on lists required under the Federal 
  Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 that are performed for the 
       Department of the Interior by Federal Government sources)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to amendment 1731. I have an amendment to send to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 1731 is now pending.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself and Mr. 
     Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 1754 to amendment No. 
     1731:

       Strike lines 3 through 6, and insert the following:
       Sec. ____. Not later than December 31 of each year, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the competitive sourcing activities on the list required 
     under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note) that were performed 
     for the Department of the Interior during the previous fiscal 
     year by Federal Government sources. The report shall 
     include--
       (1) the total number of competitions completed;
       (2) the total number of competitions announced, together 
     with a list of the activities covered by such competitions;
       (3) the total number of full-time equivalent Federal 
     employees studied --under completed competitions;
       (4) the total number of full-time equivalent Federal 
     employees being --studied under competitions announced, but 
     not completed;
       (5) the incremental cost directly attributable to 
     conducting the competitions identified under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), including

[[Page S11792]]

     costs attributable to paying outside consultants and 
     contractors;
       (6) an estimate of the total anticipated savings, or a 
     quantifiable --description of improvements in service or 
     performance, derived from completed competitions;
       (7) actual savings, or a quantifiable description of 
     improvements in --service or performance, derived from the 
     implementation of competitions completed after May 29, 2003;
       (8) the total projected number of full time equivalent 
     Federal employees covered by competitions scheduled to be 
     announced in the fiscal year covered by the next report 
     required under this section; and
       (9) a general description of how the competitive sourcing 
     decisionmaking processes of the Department of the Interior 
     are aligned with the strategic workforce plan of that 
     department.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree 
amendment to the Reid amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. 
Before I speak to the specifics of the underlying Reid amendment, I 
will first describe my examination of the administration's competitive 
sourcing initiative which I have spent a great deal of time on.
  Competitive sourcing is one of the five management initiatives 
included in the President's management agenda. As I said, I paid close 
attention to this initiative because it is closely related to the 
Federal Government's strategic human capital management. It is fair to 
say I have spent more time on this issue than anyone in the Senate 
during the last 5 years.
  It is important to note that competitive sourcing is not 
privatization, nor is it outsourcing. It is public-private competition, 
a methodical process for evaluating the most efficient and cost-
effective manner of providing a service that is commercial in nature 
and not inherently governmental.
  I would like to make clear to my colleagues that the total Government 
workforce is about 1.609 million. And inherently governmental is about 
751,000; commercial, about 858,000; and of the 858,000 that are 
commercial, only about 416,000 are available for competition. That is 
26 percent of the Federal workforce. The Department of Interior 
positions being evaluated, which we are talking about today, under U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National 
Park Service, maintenance of vehicle, lawn, bathroom, and air 
conditioner, archeological support; Bureau of Reclamation, Job Corps 
Centers; Bureau of Land Management, maintenance of lawn, vehicle, 
bathroom, and air conditioner, geographic information services, and 
photography.

  These are positions that are being evaluated. It doesn't necessarily 
mean they are going to be put out for competitive outsourcing. Contrary 
to what has been said on the floor of the Senate, I want to quote from 
the Government Executive, which talks about:

       April 25, 2003.
       Feds Win Job Competition at Park Service Agriculture 
     Department.
       Federal employees have won several small public-private job 
     competitions in land management agencies, including a 
     competition at the National Park Service Office that had run 
     into opposition on Capitol Hill.
       A team of 45 archaeologists at the Southeastern 
     Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida, defeated 
     private contractors earlier this month, according to Park 
     Service officials. The in-house team re-organized itself into 
     the ``most efficient organization,'' eliminating 17 seasonal 
     jobs and trimming $850,000 in annual personnel costs, 
     according to Donna Calvels, coordinator of the Park Service's 
     competitive sourcing program.
       ``Not one permanent employee lost their job.''

  Hear me?

       ``Not one permanent employee lost their job, and the 
     competition will save $4.2 million over the next five 
     years,'' Calvels said Thursday.
       Federal workers have prevailed in other small competitions 
     decided recently. In the Forest Service, civil servants won 
     competitions at six Job Corps centers across the country, 
     according to Thomas Mills, the agency's deputy director for 
     business operations. The Forest Service operates 18 Job Corps 
     centers as part of a job training program for young adults, 
     which dates back to the New Deal programs of the 1930s. 
     Employees at every center--940 workers in all--are now 
     competing for their jobs.
       So far, roughly 300 civil servants at Job Corps centers in 
     Anaconda and Darby, Montana; Franklin, North Carolina; 
     Estacada, Oregon, and Pine Knot and Mariba, Kentucky, have 
     won their competitions. At each center, the Forest Service is 
     using the ``streamlined'' competition method, which compares 
     the cost of the in-house team with the going rate in the 
     private sector. The agency received a waiver from the Office 
     of Management and Budget that allows it to give incumbent 
     workers a 10 percent cost advantage in the competitions, 
     according to Mills. The cost advantage is prohibited under 
     the revised OMB Circular A-76, issued in late May.
       Federal workers have also fared well in several streamlined 
     competitions held by the Agriculture Department's Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service.

  So the point is what we are talking about here is evaluating 
positions in various Federal agencies to determine whether those 
positions can be competitively bid and, in most of the cases, the in-
house people win those competitions. In most cases, it is found after 
it is done that those people have been given an opportunity to get 
together and figure out how they can do a better job in order to save 
their job and compete with the private sector. That is what this is 
about. This is not like, well, if we don't pass this amendment, 
everything is going to be farmed out in the Interior Department.

  Historically, Government employees at the Department of Defense, the 
agency with by far the most experience in conducting competitions, have 
won more than two-thirds of public-private competitions since 1997 and 
in the process have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. Furthermore, 
from 1997 to 2001, Federal employees won 98 percent of the streamlined 
competitions conducted at the Defense Department.
  This demonstrates that Federal employees can compete and win. During 
the competition process, Federal employees form a most efficient 
organization--an MEO--to develop the most competitive bid possible. 
Through this process, employees make substantive changes to their 
organization in a collaborative process involving both managers and 
line employees.
  What I like is that is quality management--going to the employees and 
asking them how they can do their job better than they are now doing 
it. The result is, regardless of who wins the competition, performance 
is improved and savings are realized. Isn't that what we want, better 
performance and savings? Ultimately, MEOs allow agencies to work harder 
and smarter and do more with less. The teamwork and collaboration that 
characterize most efficient organizations should be present at all 
Federal agencies, not just those that are undergoing competition.
  The original goal of competitive sourcing was to compete a percentage 
of the Federal commercial functions with the private sector to cut 
costs and improve performance. This policy has merit. As a former mayor 
and Governor, I know from experience there are times when it is 
appropriate to compete government functions to obtain the best value 
for the taxpayers. At the same time, I know what motivated and well-
trained public employees can accomplish.
  The original sourcing goals of this administration--and I had real 
problems with it--were to compete 5 percent of commercial functions in 
the first year, an additional 10 percent in the second year, and 
eventually 50 percent of eligible commercial activities. I have been 
very concerned with these goals since they were announced. My chief 
concern was that the governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing had 
not been based on comprehensive analysis of the Federal workforce on an 
agency-by-agency basis. The amendment I offer today requires that be 
done and reported on.
  In that regard, these goals reminded me of the workforce downsizing 
of the Clinton administration. The U.S. General Accounting Office has 
documented that little or no strategic workforce planning was conducted 
in Federal agencies before downsizing took place. It was a mindless 
downsizing, without looking at the jobs agencies had to perform. What 
this administration is trying to do right now is reshape their 
workforce to be able to do the job they have been asked to do.
  Therefore, I have endeavored to learn more about the initiative. I 
attended a Governmental Affairs Committee oversight hearing on sourcing 
in March 2002 and criticized--that was Chairman Durbin--the manner in 
which the administration was pursuing this program. Over the last 2 
years, I have pressed this point in meetings with various officials 
from the OMB and the White House, urging them to modify the goals of 
the program. To its credit, the Bush administration has agreed. Clay 
Johnson was in my office last week. He gets it.

[[Page S11793]]

  At a Governmental Affairs subcommittee hearing I held on July 24, 
2003, Angela Styles, who was, until recently, the administrator of 
Federal procurement policy, announced the administration would drop its 
governmentwide goals for competitive sourcing.
  I was pleased to learn that each Federal agency will decide the way 
in which competitive sourcing will proceed. Furthermore, the 
administration will release a report later this month that will outline 
the manner in which they have conducted this initiative over the last 3 
years.
  The administration has demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to 
make significant modifications to this program. This is a significant 
step in the right direction and demonstrates that congressional 
oversight can yield positive results.
  However, Congress is considering several amendments that undermine 
the administration's progress on competitive sourcing. The amendment 
offered by Senator Reid would prohibit competitive sourcing studies and 
activities at the Department of the Interior. This is, in my opinion, 
misguided, for several reasons.
  First and foremost, since the Eisenhower administration decreed that 
the public sector should not compete with the private sector, the 
decision of whether or not to initiate competitions and the rules 
governing these competitions has been the purview of the executive 
branch of Government. We are stepping on the prerogatives of the 
executive branch of Government. There is another way we can do that, 
and that is what our amendment does--in a way that I think is 
appropriate. This authority has been exercised in the past by both 
Democratic and Republican administrations.
  Legislatively exempting the Department of the Interior from 
competitive sourcing circumvents longstanding executive branch 
prerogative. It is not surprising the administration would strenuously 
resist efforts to diminish this authority, which is why OMB has said it 
will recommend a veto of any bill that abolishes or weakens existing 
management prerogatives.
  Second, this amendment is one of a variety of different restrictions 
on competitive sourcing that have been placed on 5 appropriations bills 
that, if enacted, would constitute an incoherent set of restrictions. I 
agree Congress needs additional information on the implementation of 
this initiative. However, any reporting requirements, which I support 
and will discuss in the context of my second-degree amendment with 
Senator Thomas, should be uniform across the executive branch, not 
willy-nilly from one department to another department.
  Third, I consider this issue the jurisdiction of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee. That committee has held hearings on this initiative 
under both Republican and Democratic leadership.
  Any Senator seeking to make changes to this initiative should 
introduce a bill, have it referred to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and advance it through the normal committee process. It 
should not be addressed through a series of disjointed amendments to 
appropriations bills.
  Fourth, as I noted a moment ago, the administration announced a major 
change to its sourcing initiative at my subcommittee July 24 hearing. 
It dropped its governmentwide goals and plans and will now do this on 
an agency-by-agency basis. It is reasonable for us to monitor how this 
change is implemented. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment being offered by Senator Thomas and me.
  Our amendment would require the Interior Department to provide 
Congress with detailed information on how it is implementing public-
private competitions. This includes a description of how the 
Department's competitive sourcing decisionmaking process is aligned 
with the Department's strategic workforce plan. It also requires the 
Department to report the projected number of full-time equivalent 
employees covered by competitions scheduled to be announced in the next 
fiscal year.
  If this amendment is adopted, it will not affect the Interior 
Department's consideration this year, but if they want to do them next 
year, in this report they are going to be required to say which ones 
next year they are going to be putting out for competition and why they 
are putting them out for competition. This is not some arbitrary type 
of activity as some people would like to characterize it.
  Imposing rigorous reporting requirements is the right approach. It 
has been the prerogative of every administration since the 1950s to 
decide when to conduct public-private competitions and the manner in 
which these competitions would be conducted. Congress, in its oversight 
role, has a right and responsibility to know what the executive branch 
is doing. The amendment would require the Bush administration to 
provide exactly that information.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this report from 
Government Executive magazine be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From the Government Executive Magazine, Aug. 25, 2003]

   Feds Win Job Competitions at Park Service, Agriculture Department

                         (By Jason Peckenpaugh)

       Federal employees have won several small public-private job 
     competitions in land management agencies, including a 
     competition at a National Park Service office that had run 
     into opposition on Capitol Hill.
       A team of 45 archaeologists at the Southeastern 
     Archaeological Center in Tallahassee, Fla., defeated private 
     contractors earlier this month, according to Park Service 
     officials. The in-house team reorganized itself into a ``most 
     efficient organization,'' eliminating 17 seasonal jobs and 
     trimming $850,000 in annual personnel costs, according to 
     Donna Kalvels, coordinator of the Park Service's competitive 
     sourcing program.
       ``Not one permanent employee lost their job, and the 
     competition will save $4.2 million over the next five 
     years,'' Kalvels said Thursday.
       Last month, the House voted overwhelmingly to cut off funds 
     for job competitions at the Southeastern Center and at the 
     Midwest Archaeological Center in Lincoln, Neb., where the 
     competition still is ongoing. The funding freeze would not 
     take effect until fiscal 2004, meaning it would not apply to 
     competitions finished during this fiscal year.
       But John Ehrenhard, director of the Southeastern Center, 
     said the legislation is still needed to protect other Park 
     Service archaeologists from the Bush administration's 
     competitive sourcing push. ``Even though we won our 
     competition, I'd like to see some [legislation] saying that 
     no more money could be put toward . . . competitive 
     sourcing,'' he said. ``It's just another layer of 
     protection.''
       Ehrenhard added that four employees left the center during 
     the competition because they didn't want to risk losing their 
     jobs. ``Most were in their late 20s and early 30s, and they 
     were looking forward to having a career in the National Park 
     Service, and they felt they were denied that,'' he said.
       Federal workers have prevailed in other small competitions 
     decided recently. In the Forest Service, civil servants won 
     competitions at six job corps centers across the country, 
     according to Thomas Mills, the agency's deputy director for 
     business operations. The Forest Service operates 18 job corps 
     centers as part of a job-training program for young adults, 
     which dates back to the New Deal programs of the 1930s. 
     Employees at every center--940 workers in all--are now 
     competing for their jobs.
       So far, roughly 300 civil servants at job corps centers in 
     Anaconda and Darby, Mont.; Franklin, N.C., Estacada, Ore.; 
     and Pine Knot and Mariba, Ky., have won their competitions. 
     At each center, the Forest Service is using the 
     ``streamlined'' competition method, which compares the cost 
     of the in-house team with the going rate in the private 
     sector. The agency received a waiver from the Office of 
     Management and Budget that allows it to give incumbent 
     workers a 10 percent cost advantage in the competitions, 
     according to Mills. The cost advantage is prohibited under 
     the revised OMB Circular A-76, issued in late May.
       Federal workers have also fared well in several streamlined 
     competitions held by the Agriculture Department's Natural 
     Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). In Columbus, Ohio, NRCS 
     workers won three competitions involving mail, clerical and 
     soil-mapping work because procurement officials did not 
     receive valid private sector offers, according to Michelle 
     Lohstroh, state administrative officer with NRCS. Seven and 
     one-half full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) were involved 
     in these competitions.
       In Annapolis, Md., four NRCS employees triumphed in a 
     competition, according to Debra Hepburn, a contracting 
     specialist with the agency. ``We have a pretty small office 
     out here in Annapolis,'' she said.
       Competitions involving a single NRCS employee in Auburn, 
     Ala., and Lake City, Fla., respectively, also went to federal 
     employees. In Lake City, officials put a vacant position up 
     for competition, to minimize the possible impact on workers, 
     according to Lynn Merrill, an NRCS contract specialist.
       Meanwhile, in Michigan, four soil-mapping specialists edged 
     out companies in a competition for their jobs, and in 
     Oklahoma, 17

[[Page S11794]]

     soil conservation technicians successfully defended their 
     jobs, according to Luann Lillie, an NRCS contracting officer 
     in Stillwater, Okla. And in California, in-house workers 
     triumphed in competitions involving 12 and one-half FTEs, 
     according to Ray Miller, a contract specialist in Davis, 
     Calif.
       The NRCS is competing roughly 800 soil conservation 
     technician positions on a state-by-state basis, according to 
     Patty Brown, competitive sourcing coordinator with the 
     agency. These technicians help farmers and ranchers apply 
     conservation techniques to their land, she said in an 
     interview last month.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this report contradicts some of the 
arguments that have been made for the Reid amendment this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time 
consumed by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, will be 
counted toward the 25 minutes; is that right?
  Mr. BURNS. Is that agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is related to 
the next hour.
  Mr. REID. The unanimous consent request has 50 minutes divided--
actually 60 minutes. That time is equally divided. It is my 
understanding that the 50 minutes between Senator Voinovich and myself 
is to be equally divided. I simply ask that the time he already 
consumed should be counted against the 25 minutes. That is my statement 
in the form of a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not interpret the unanimous 
consent request that way. Would the Senator like to amend the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. REID. I ask for that modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object, we have some statements on 
our side we would like to give. That is why we wanted 25 minutes. If we 
take Senator Voinovich's time out of it--I am not sure how long he 
spoke--it will not give time for Senator Thomas and me.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in my day-to-day life, I have worn many 
hats. In my life, I have been a small business owner, a mayor, a 
parent, and a consumer, just to name a few of the roles I have played 
over the years. I mention them because with each of them, whenever 
there was a job that had to be done, I always knew the best way to 
ensure I got the best deal on a project or product was to put it up for 
bid and place the job in competition. It is a simple philosophy, and it 
just makes sense to apply the same logic even to Government.
  President Bush has said Government should be market based; we should 
not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. Why is the 
administration so enthusiastic about competitive sourcing? Because it 
saves money while holding quality standards high. In other words, we 
get the same quality at less cost. Who wouldn't like a deal like that?
  We do not need to look far to find the results of competitive 
sourcing. The Department of Defense, NASA, and the Coast Guard have a 
fair amount of experience in the field. In fact, the Department of 
Defense reports that it will have saved $6 billion from 2000 to 2003 
through A-76 reviews.
  Another telling example cited by this study was OMB's decision to 
take a job usually given to the Government Printing Office and put it 
up for bid. The job was the printing of the 2004 Federal budget. When 
forced to compete, the Government Printing Office turned in a bid for 
the project that was 24 percent lower than the previous year.
  I do not think there can be any doubt that competitive sourcing saves 
money. But it does more than that by allowing Government to more 
actively engage in contracts with the private sector. Government can 
increase its access to the skills, technologies, and innovations of the 
small business communities throughout the country.
  This spring, I had an opportunity to visit the Mint in Philadelphia, 
and the employees there told me what a good job they were doing. I 
observed them doing a good job. They let me know they were doing that 
so their jobs would not be outsourced. It was a good attitude. They 
were doing quality work. They were improving. I saw an article in last 
week's USA Today that talked about the improvement at the Mint since 
the new director, a business person, was put in charge.
  We have before us an amendment to slow the process and prohibit the 
continuation of funding for competitive sourcing in the Department of 
the Interior. Adopting this amendment would turn back the clock and 
head us in the wrong direction. At a time when budget deficits must be 
controlled, we should be taking full advantage of tried and true 
methods to cut spending and control costs, not trying to remove the 
option.
  One concern that has been raised about competitive sourcing is that 
it might have a seriously negative impact on the Federal workforce. 
This is not true. Competitive sourcing is about increasing efficiency, 
not eliminating workers.
  As Senator Voinovich said, it is about asking the employees how it 
can be done best. The person actually doing the job usually knows how 
and best. As a case in point, the Department of the Interior has 
reported that of more than 2,500 full-time employees whose jobs have 
been analyzed under A-76, none have been involuntarily dismissed from 
their jobs. Those who claim we are out to toss out the Federal 
workforce are missing the point about this program.
  Simply stated, competitive sourcing is better for taxpayers and the 
Federal Government. It makes Federal dollars go further, and it forces 
Federal agencies to perform more like businesses where the highest 
level of efficiency is the only acceptable level, and it is working.
  If we allow passage of the Reid amendment, we are in fact taking away 
the one tool a Federal agency has to ensure it is getting maximum 
efficiency and quality. As a member of the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee, I have a responsibility to oppose 
legislation that may harm our small business community. I cannot 
support the Reid amendment because it would have a negative impact on 
the small businesses of our Nation by refusing to allow them to 
compete. I have been holding some procurement conferences in Wyoming 
for small business so they could learn how to compete, how to combine 
if the job is too big for one small business. It has been working. It 
hasn't kicked Federal employees out of their jobs, but it has produced 
some lower prices and some employment for small businesspeople.

  Studies have shown that when the private sector does win public/
private competitions through Circular A-76, a small business, a woman-
owned business, or a minority-owned business wins that competition 60 
percent of the time. By cutting funding for competitive sourcing in the 
Department of the Interior, we would be blocking off one of the few 
entryways that small businesses have available to gain access to jobs 
in the Federal Government.
  With more than 50 percent of the Federal workforce eligible for 
retirement within the next 5 years--let me repeat that--with more than 
50 percent of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement within the 
next 5 years, it is essential to ensure we have the right people in the 
right positions.

[[Page S11795]]

  Competitive sourcing creates an atmosphere in which the Government is 
not forced to deflect its valuable Federal employees to tasks that are 
not inherently governmental. It allows Federal agencies to more 
effectively manage their personnel.
  That kind of management was clearly in evidence when a number of 
national parks on the eastern seaboard used temporary employees during 
the summer as lifeguards. Through competitive sourcing, the National 
Park Service contracted this work to private lifeguard companies. These 
companies then hired the Park Service's temporary employees, giving 
them full-time year-round jobs. The local communities benefited through 
the enhanced opportunities for local businesses and the former Park 
Service employees benefited by getting better pay and more work.
  Circular A-76 is important because it represents a win-win situation 
for small businesses; also for the Government; also for the taxpayer; 
and for all those who need and perform the work.
  We are all familiar with the old adage, if it isn't broke, don't fix 
it. Circular A-76 is working well and will only get better as we fine-
tune the process. It is a process that isn't broke and it deserves to 
keep doing what it does best, saving the Government money.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will wait for the floor manager here.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will try this again. Is the time for 
Senator Enzi going to be counted toward the 25 minutes that the 
majority has?
  Mr. BURNS. I would advise that that is acceptable, that the Enzi 
statement would be part of that 25 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Will the Chair inform me how long the Senator from Wyoming 
spoke?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Seven minutes.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I am sorry, Mr. President, how much time is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes.


                           Amendment No. 1731

  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, I say to the Senator from Montana.
  It is interesting to be talking about this issue. The fact is, I 
suspect all of us are looking for the most efficient way to operate the 
Government. I guess that is what we spend a lot of time doing. We spend 
a lot of time looking for ways to make it less costly to get the job 
done. We spend a lot of time providing opportunities for small 
businesses. These are the very things that are involved here. Yet we 
seem to be trying to keep that from happening. It is a bit of a 
surprise.
  Competitive sourcing seeks to streamline Federal agencies. This has 
been going on, by the way, for a long time. In 1996 we passed the FAIR 
Act and began to do something with it. There were different kinds of 
reactions to it. There were some efforts made in the Clinton 
administration that did not go very far to utilize this.
  Then 2 years ago we started to revamp the thing a little bit and make 
it work. That is what this administration has done--to make the 
Government more accountable to the taxpayers, to reduce the 
Government's direct competition in the private sector. These are the 
purposes of this competitive sourcing.
  The President's competitive sourcing initiative is designed to 
improve performance and efficiency. That is really the bottom line. 
When the Government competes with the private sector, we erode the 
local tax base, we drive up prices, decrease performance of Federal 
agencies because there is no competition, and we know that is a key to 
our whole effort within the sector.

  Regarding cost savings, both the General Accounting Office and the 
Center for Naval Analysis, two independent groups, have found through 
extensive research that competitive sourcing reduces costs by 30 
percent--regardless of who wins. Keep in mind, this is competitive 
sourcing. When this particular job or this particular task is set up 
for competitive sourcing, the Federal employees have a chance to 
compete for it as well as the outside. In most cases, over half the 
cases in the past, Federal employees have won.
  Nevertheless, because of that, because of looking for ways to do it 
more efficiently, there has been a 30-percent reduction in costs. So 
the Government can save billions of dollars by allowing the private/
public competition to occur. Stopping this competition only wastes 
taxpayer dollars, increases the inefficiency of a Government monopoly, 
and prevents us from improving upon services the taxpayers receive.
  One of the troublesome things has been that the image of that kind of 
action has not often been clear. I have here an article by Fran 
Mainella, who is the Director of the National Park Service.

       Over the past several months, a number of media reports 
     have mischaracterized the scope, purpose and effects of the 
     National Park Service competitive sourcing efforts.

  She goes on:

       Our competitive sourcing initiative challenges us to put 
     our finger on our own pulse. It provides a framework by which 
     we examine whether we have the right skills, the right 
     techniques, organizational structures to provide Americans 
     the best possible service--service that is effective and 
     efficient.

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

       Over the years, the OMB Circular A-76 competitive process 
     has benefited taxpayers with billions of dollars in savings. 
     I am proud of the fact that these competitions have shown 
     Federal workers to be just as competitive as their private-
     sector counterparts in terms of their cost, efficiency and 
     overall quality of performance.
       Mr. Chairman, you have often heard me say that Federal 
     employees are not afraid of competition. If we cannot provide 
     the services better, faster and cheaper than our private-
     sector competition, then we do not deserve to perform the 
     work in the first place. We ask you and the members of this 
     committee not to deny us the opportunity and dignity of 
     competing.

  This is the national president of the American Federation of 
Government Employees. This is, of course, some time back.
  So what we are dealing with here, of course, is an amendment that 
prevents the improvement of the Department of the Interior's commercial 
activity competitive sourcing. This is something we have dealt with for 
a good amount of time.
  We talked about the Printing Office and the money that has been saved 
there. We talk a lot about parks. Of course, I come from a State with 
parks, such as the Grand Tetons.
  There is an idea that we are going to replace the park rangers. That 
isn't true at all. This has nothing to do with park rangers and people 
who have those kinds of professional jobs. We are talking about people 
who do maintenance work and people who do other kinds of activities. 
That is the case.
  We agree parks are special. It is one of the things we hear about a 
great deal. We hear about it incorrectly from time to time. That, I 
guess, is what is happening here.
  Secretary Norton noted that 2,500 positions have been reviewed under 
competitive sourcing since 2001. Not one full-time Federal employee has 
been involuntarily separated. These are things that change. We have a 
great deal of retirement coming up, and there will be some opportunity 
to do

[[Page S11796]]

some things here that will give us a chance to make our Federal 
Government more effective and more efficient.
  Over the past several years it has been our Government policy not to 
compete with the private sector. However, the Federal Government 
currently has about 416,000 positions that are characterized as 
commercial in nature. Seeing that Congress has done a poor job with 
sourcing policy, President Bush initiated competitive sourcing to 
improve the way it functions. We are now in the process of seeing that 
improvement take place.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always concerned 
about economic developments. They should support this opportunity to 
improve competitive sourcing. Keep in mind that Government competition 
in the private sector erodes the local tax base and creates a 
Government monopoly.
  Here we are. I think we have an opportunity to continue to strengthen 
that. The amendment before us is certainly not one that helps that. It 
precludes going forward with this very useful thing. The amendment we 
will be voting on is a first second-degree amendment.
  This reporting requirement addresses a number of the concerns many 
Senators had about competitive sourcing. This second-degree amendment 
does the following:
  It requires the Secretary of the Interior to report annually on its 
competitive sourcing efforts, including listing the total number of 
competitions completed; list the total number of competitions 
announced; the activity covering the total number of full-time 
equivalent Federal employees studied under the completed competitions; 
total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees being studied 
but not completed; the incremental costs directly attributable to 
conducting the competition, including costs attributable to paying 
outside consultants; estimate of the total and completed savings; 
description of the improvements in services and performance derived 
from the competition actually reported; and total number of full-time 
equivalent employees covered by competition rescheduling for next 
fiscal year.
  That is the kind of reporting we will have.
  We have a number of letters. I ask unanimous consent to have them 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                                   Washington, DC.

Legislative Alert--Support Competition Among the Federal Government and 
                           Private Businesses

       The Senate will likely debate and vote on an amendment 
     offered by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to H.R. 2961, the 
     Department of the Interior (DoI) and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004, which is currently 
     being debated by the Senate. The amendment prohibits the 
     initiation or continuation of any competitive sourcing 
     studies until the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations have been given a detailed competitive 
     sourcing proposal and have approved in writing such proposal.
       Because the amendment significantly limits the DoI's 
     management flexibility and prevents the agency's ability to 
     identify and access the best and most efficient sources for 
     the performance of its commercial activities, Americans for 
     Tax Reform (ATR) strongly opposes Senator Reid's amendment.
       In his two years in office, President Bush has worked to 
     make government more efficient by streamlining federal 
     regulations and holding government bureaucracies accountable 
     to the American taxpayer who funds their departments. The 
     president constructed a strong Management Agenda, focusing on 
     public-private competition to create a performance-based 
     management initiative designed to improve performance and 
     efficiency.
       Public-private competition, or competitive sourcing, is the 
     process for determining if the government's commercial jobs, 
     like computer services, food services, or maintenance, should 
     be performed by federal agencies or by private sector 
     companies. However, President Bush's plan to subject federal 
     workers to competition has come under constant attack from 
     labor unions and liberal lawmakers on Capital Hill.
       While Senator Reid claims that the bill will eliminate 
     thousands of federal jobs, it is simply not true. For 
     example, of the 1,600 full-time employees the Department has 
     already analyzed for competitive sourcing, not one federal 
     employee has been involuntarily dismissed from his job. In 
     addition, DoI employees have won roughly 50% of the sourcing 
     competitions and not a single DoI employee has been 
     involuntarily separated as a result of competition.
       Competition among public and private entities drives down 
     costs and ratchets up performance. According to the General 
     Accounting Office and the Center of the Naval Analysis, two 
     independent and objective groups that have conducted the most 
     thorough research on competitive sourcing, the cost of a 
     function goes down 30 percent regardless of whether the in-
     house government employees or a private contractor win the 
     competition. These efficiencies translate into savings of 
     billions of dollars that can be used for much needed tax 
     relief for all Americans.
       More competition leads to huge savings. Absent competition, 
     inefficient government monopolies will continue to waste tax 
     dollars while failing to provide even a reasonable level of 
     service. Therefore, the taxpayer is the ultimate loser when 
     competitive sourcing is stymied.
                                  ____



                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 28, 2003.

  An Open Letter to Congress: Competitive Contracting Saves Taxpayers 
                                Dollars

       Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations 
     strongly support implementation of President Bush's 
     competitive contracting program and oppose Congressional 
     schemes to make implementation of this vital initiative more 
     difficult or impossible. According to official government 
     estimates, there are 850,000 jobs in the federal government 
     that qualify as ``commercial positions.'' These jobs include 
     everything from writing software to mowing lawns and are done 
     every day by private firms. President Bush's Management 
     Agenda set the goal of having half of the commercial 
     activities performed by federal agencies face competition 
     over the next four years.
       The potential benefits of increased outsourcing are clear. 
     For example, in 2002, the Office of Management and Budget 
     decided to use competition in response to poor performance by 
     the Government Printing Office (GPO) and opened the job of 
     printing the fiscal 2004 federal budget to competitive 
     bidding. GPO turned in a bid that was almost 24 percent lower 
     than its price from the previous year in order to keep its 
     job. That was $100,000 a year that GPO could have saved 
     taxpayers any time it chose, but didn't until it faced 
     competition.
       Contrary to popular belief, competitive bidding does not 
     achieve cost savings by simply reducing the ranks of federal 
     employees. Research by the General Accounting Office and 
     other agencies has shown that federal workers win competitive 
     sourcing bids against private firms about half the time, and 
     when they do lose, the majority go to work for the contractor 
     or shift to other jobs in the federal government. Typically, 
     less than 7 percent of them are laid off.
       In spite of the obvious benefits of competition in other 
     areas of the economy, several efforts are underway in 
     Congress that would kill competition at the federal level. 
     Legislative proposals have been introduced to prohibit 
     competitive outsourcing in the Departments of Agriculture and 
     Interior, and attempts to prevent reform of air traffic 
     control are proliferating.
       Competition and choice are important marketplace forces. 
     Harnessing them to provide commercial activities within the 
     federal government will save taxpayer money and allow federal 
     agencies to do their jobs more effectively and offer better 
     service. Congress should be embracing competitive contracting 
     rather than undermining it.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Paul J. Gessing,
         Director of Government Affairs, National Taxpayers Union.
                                              Dr. Adrian T. Moore,
                      Vice President, Research, Reason Foundation.
                                               Randall W. Hatcher,
                                              President, MAU, Inc.
                                                  Grover Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform.
                                  ____

                                                  American Council


                                     of Engineering Companies,

                                               September 22, 2003.
       To Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the 
     6,000 member companies of the American Council of Engineering 
     Companies, I urge you to vote against an amendment offered by 
     Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to the Fiscal Year 2004 Interior 
     Appropriations bill. The amendment would block funding for 
     all future public-private competitions, thereby sacrificing 
     government efficiency, innovation and cost savings.
       The competitive sourcing program is a centerpiece of the 
     President's Management Agenda. The Bush Administration's plan 
     to open non-inherently governmental functions to competition 
     from the private market will ensure that taxpayers receive 
     the best services for their tax dollars. If passed, the Reid 
     Amendment would prevent Interior from realizing cost savings 
     that result from public-private competitions. A report from 
     the General Accounting Office states that public-private 
     competitions typically result in savings of over 30%.
       Private engineering companies provide a range of highly 
     technical services to the Federal government, including the 
     Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. Over the past 
     several years, our member firms have grown increasingly 
     frustrated over the practice of some Interior agencies that 
     actively market their services to state and local governments 
     in direct competition with the private sector. This practice 
     hits our smaller firms particularly hard. The Bush plan would 
     help to correct this problem and as such, any

[[Page S11797]]

     attempt to derail this process is strongly opposed by the 
     engineering industry.
       ACEC respectfully urges you to place the interests of the 
     taxpayers first, and support effectiveness and efficiency in 
     government. Again, we urge you to vote against the Reid 
     Amendment to the F.Y. 2004 Interior Appropriations bill as 
     well as any other amendment that may be attached during the 
     remainder of the 108th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Camille Fleenor,
      Director, Federal Procurement Policy.
                                  ____



                            Citizens Against Government Waste,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than one million 
     members and supporters of the Council of Citizens Against 
     Government Waste (CCAGW), we urge you to vote against an 
     amendment being offered by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to H.R. 
     2691, the Interior Appropriations Bill for FY 2004, which 
     would defund competitive sourcing studies provided for under 
     OMB Circular A-76.
       OMB Circular A-76 is the federal process of obtaining 
     commercial services at the best price through open and fair 
     competition. This practice is also known as competitive 
     sourcing, and is the cornerstone of President Bush's 
     Management Agenda reforms. Competition between the private 
     sector and government employees performing commercial work 
     ensures accountability, efficiency, and budget savings.
       An inventory of government services conducted during the 
     Clinton administration identified more than 850,000 of the 
     1.8 million jobs in the federal government as commercial in 
     nature. Opening up these services to competition promotes the 
     principles of government reform and service to the taxpayers. 
     Numerous studies demonstrate that public-private competition 
     improves service delivery and decreases costs to taxpayers by 
     anywhere from 10-40 percent on average.
       Opponents of A-76 contend that staging job competitions is 
     cost prohibitive. This argument is a political smoke screen 
     meant to derail the administration's management reforms. The 
     President's commonsense proposals would follow private sector 
     management practices, such as linking budgets with 
     performance targets, improving general agency performance 
     through development and implementation of strategic plans, 
     and improving service while providing the best value to the 
     taxpayer.
       We urge you to vote ``No'' on Sen. Reid's amendment to H.R. 
     2691 and allow the continuation of public-private 
     competition. CCAGW will consider rating this amendment, and 
     any votes related to competitive sourcing, in our annual 2003 
     Congressional Ratings.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Schatz,
     President.
                                  ____

                                   Congressional & Public Affairs,


                                     U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2003.
       To Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of the 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million businesses 
     and organizations every size, sector and region, I urge you 
     to vote against an amendment offered by Senator Harry Reid 
     (D-NV) to the Fiscal Year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill. 
     This amendment would prohibit the Department of Interior 
     (DOI) from conducting competitive sourcing studies, thereby 
     sacrificing government efficiency, innovation and significant 
     cost savings.
       Prohibiting competition within DOI strikes at the heart of 
     the President's Management Agenda, particularly the 
     Competitive Sourcing Initiative, which aims to increase 
     government efficiency, improve government performance and 
     save taxpayer dollars through competition. On average, a 30% 
     cost savings is realized when a competition between the 
     public and private sector is held on commercial government 
     functions, regardless of who wins. In this era of sharply 
     constrained resources it seems particularly irresponsible to 
     arbitrarily limit an agency's ability to identify and access 
     the best and most efficient sources for the performance of 
     its commercial activities. Senior Administration officials 
     have recommended that the President veto the FY04 Interior 
     Appropriations bill if such language is included.
       Contrary to common rhetoric, competitive sourcing does not 
     achieve cost savings by simply reducing the ranks of federal 
     employees. In fact, of the 2,500 positions that have been 
     reviewed under competitive sourcing since 2001 in DOI, not 
     one full-time federal employee has been involuntarily 
     separated. Federal workers win competitive sourcing bids 
     against private firms over half the time, and when they do 
     lose, the majority go to work for the competitive or shift to 
     other jobs in the federal government.
       We respectfully urge you to place the interests of the 
     taxpayers first, and support effectiveness and efficiency in 
     government by voting against any anti-outsourcing provisions 
     in the Fiscal Year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill. The 
     Chamber may consider votes on or in relation to this matter 
     in our annual ``How They Voted'' scorecard.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                               National Federation


                                      of Independent Business,

                                               September 22, 2003.

              Stand Up for Main Street and Small Business

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I urge 
     you to oppose the Reid competitive sourcing amendment to the 
     Fiscal Year 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill. The amendment 
     would prohibit the Department from conducting any competitive 
     sourcing studies and deny small businesses the opportunity to 
     compete for Interior's commercial activities.
       Competitive sourcing is not only an opportunity for federal 
     agencies to improve the efficiency of their operations, but 
     it also saves taxpayer dollars. Independent studies by the 
     General Accounting Administration, among others, contend that 
     competition will save taxpayers an average of 30 percent. 
     Congress should not limit the management flexibility of the 
     Department to study ways to optimize their delivery of 
     services to the taxpayer. We believe, for example, that 
     allowing small businesses to bid on services they already 
     successfully provide in the commercial marketplace will lead 
     to improving government efficiency and decreasing costs.
       We strongly urge a ``no'' vote on any amendment that would 
     prevent the Interior Department from moving forward on this 
     important initiative.
       This vote will be recorded as a NFIB ``Key Vote'' for the 
     108th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Danner,
                                Sr. Vice President, Public Policy.

  Mr. THOMAS. Here is one in behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
favoring the competitive sourcing and opposing the amendment.
  Here is the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 
which opposes the amendment.
  Citizens Against Government Waste is also in support of this.
  American Council of Engineering Companies, the National Taxpayers 
Union, and Americans for Tax Reform--all of these are in strong support 
of continuing to give the private sector an opportunity in these areas.
  I also finally would like to tell you there is a statement of 
administration policy here in which the administration indicates they 
will veto a bill that includes this kind of program. They say the 
administration understands the amendment will be offered on the Senate 
floor which would effectively shut down the administration's 
competitive sourcing initiative to fundamentally improve the 
performance of government in many commercial activities. The 
administration seeks to improve performance of Government services 
based on the comprehensive principle of competition, a proven way of 
protecting taxpayer dollars while providing better services and 
performance. Now is the wrong time to short circuit the implementation 
of this principle, especially since numerous agencies are starting to 
make real progress in providing public/private competition. If the 
final version of the bill contains such a provision, the President's 
senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.
  I urge we get support for this amendment so we can continue the 
competitive notion.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, everyone should understand a vote for the 
Enzi-Craig-Voinovich amendment is a vote to allow further outsourcing 
studies to go on. That is wrong.
  What is this amendment about? It is about the Park Service spending 
millions of dollars in outsourcing studies which would siphon off funds 
critical to the needs within the parks.
  The amendment that has been offered by a significant number of 
Senators--and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kerry and Senator 
Clinton as cosponsors--allows current studies to move forward on the 
implications to be evaluated. Current studies can go forward. A short 
pause is not too much to ask, for the protection of our national 
heritage is at stake.
  The House included the same reasonable language in its bill. 
According to the House report, the Appropriations Committee was 
``concerned about the massive scale of seemingly arbitrary targets and 
considerable costs of initiatives which are on such vast tracts that 
Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand 
the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''
  That is the end of the quote. That is from the Republican House of 
Representatives report language in their appropriations bill.
  The administration's own Park Service director has indicated the 
current

[[Page S11798]]

plan will reduce services to the public, will negatively impact the 
diversity of the Park Service, and will not save resources. That is 
from the administration's own Park Service director.
  I would like to read from a letter sent to me by a Park Service 
employee. Remember, this applies to more than just the Park Service. 
The Forest Service, the BLM, and other Interior agencies are affected. 
This man even signed his name, and, of course, it jeopardizes his job. 
But he is a substantial man, I am sure. His name is Chuck Luttrell. It 
is a long letter. I will not read all of it.

  Among other things, he said:

       . . . will the public be tolerant of the selling of the 
     care and operation of our national treasures to a profit 
     corporation? Will our parks get the same care, will our 
     culture and natural heritage be safe in the hands of 
     companies that could turn out to be Enrons, Worldcoms?

  He further states:

       The United States of America owes and has pledged a 
     commitment to our military veterans. We have preferential 
     hiring regulations for veterans. A private contractor has no 
     such obligation. The Federal Government has the strongest 
     commitment to diversity and equality there is.

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

       In recent years the Congress wrestled with the issues of 
     health care and insurance. Federal employees have excellent 
     health insurance options. Again contractors have far 
     different priorities and as we all know millions of people 
     working in private industry have no insurance.
       Years ago Congress passed the Davis Bacon Act to ensure 
     that some workers earned a fair, liveable, negotiated wage. 
     We employees of Lake Mead's Maintenance Division are an 
     example of Congress' will. But any contractor that would 
     replace us has no such obligation.
       The Park Service, in my 22 years of service, has never been 
     sufficiently funded. As an agency, we have always been on 
     starvation rations, and I can assure you that at my level, 
     Lake Mead N.R.A., there is absolutely no fat in the 
     system. For years our managers have been required to do 
     more with less.

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

       When it comes to saving the taxpayer's dollars nothing is 
     more efficient than having the work done for free. Nationwide 
     the National Park Service receives hundreds of thousands of 
     hours of donated labor. At Lake Mead N.R.A. alone last year 
     the public volunteered over 92,000 hours of which nearly 
     21,000 hours were in performing maintenance work. People will 
     volunteer to work for the National Park Service because they 
     recognize it is a noble and worthy gift to the country. 
     People do not, as we all know, volunteer to work for private 
     contractors.

  He goes on to say:

       Beyond being a workforce for our respective Parks, we 
     employees of the National Park Service are a national work 
     force. Lake Mead N.R.A. has sent people out over the years to 
     help with everything from oil spill cleanups to hurricane 
     relief. Every year Lake Mead employees are fighting this 
     Nation's wildland fires. This year, as always, we are on the 
     line protecting places like Denver, Colorado, and Show Low, 
     Arizona. But who will serve and man the fire camps when we 
     are gone?
       It sounds cliche, but for the large majority of the 
     National Park Service's employees their work is more than 
     just a job. It is commonplace for people in my outfit to do 
     much more than just what is written in their position 
     descriptions. I am a carpenter. I also teach all of our 
     Rangers how to conduct water search and rescues. I'm not 
     special. The maintenance employees of Lake Mead N.R.A. serve 
     on the SCUBA team, on District fire engine companies, and 
     with search and rescue teams. We serve on Park committees and 
     often volunteer for special details. We are trained in first-
     aid and are first responders. We direct traffic at accident 
     sites, we help land medical evacuation helicopters, and we 
     help handle victims and patients. We are also the eyes and 
     ears for our Rangers. We often are the ones who discover 
     trouble and report it. I don't think that it is too far of a 
     stretch to say that in some small way we are even part of 
     homeland security . . . let me say that we are essentially 
     ambassadors for the National Park Service. We are uniformed 
     employees constantly in the public eye. We are often the 
     first and sometimes the only ``official'' contact visitors 
     have with the Service. We answer questions, give directions, 
     and not all that uncommonly change a tire or two. We do all 
     these things and more, yet they are not in our job 
     descriptions and a contractor replacing us would not be 
     obligated to perform any of them.

  I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   August 5, 2002.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: My name is Chuck Luttrell and I am an 
     employee of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. I am writing 
     to you on behalf of my fellow employees of the Maintenance 
     Division. The reason I am writing is because we believe a 
     process is taking place that is detrimental to the National 
     Park Service in general and Lake Mead in particular. It is my 
     hope that I can adequately articulate our concerns and enlist 
     your support and the power of your office to stop a 
     bureaucratic train before it becomes a train wreck.
       As you know the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) 
     Act, along with the President's Management Agenda has 
     required Federal agencies to start implementing the 
     requirements of the Office of Management and Budget's 
     Circular A-76. The Department of the Interior and the 
     National Park Service have begun this ``Competitive 
     Sourcing'' process. The Lake Mead N.R.A. Maintenance Division 
     is part of the first round of studies and will begin its 
     evaluation in June of 2003.
       The stated purpose and goals of Competitive Sourcing are 
     efficiency and cost savings. The dedicated people I work with 
     welcome ways to improve and do our jobs better. However, we 
     are very concerned that the Competitive Sourcing or A-76 
     process is flawed when applied to the National Park Service. 
     We suspect that no only will it fail in its basic objectives, 
     but worse it will betray public trust and threaten the very 
     resources the Service was created to protect. Our ranks 
     provide services that will be ignored by the Competitive 
     Sourcing process and therefore lost to the visitor. Private 
     contractors simply can never completely replace our own work 
     force. Much of what we do and represent isn't even on the bid 
     sheet.
       It is my understanding that in dozens and dozens of A-76 
     conversions from the public to the private sector, no real 
     and tangible cost savings can be shown. Rather, substantial 
     cost such as employee severance packages, contract change 
     orders, contract disputes, litigation, etc. more than 
     eliminate any anticipated savings. But more importantly, 
     will the public be tolerant of the selling of the care and 
     operation of our National treasures to a for profit 
     corporation? Will our Parks get the same care, will our 
     cultural and natural heritage be safe in the hands of 
     companies that could turn out to be ENRON's or WORLDCOM's?
       I realize that what I have written so far could be 
     dismissed as the ravings of a man fighting to save his job. 
     Indeed it would be easy for irrational fear to drive my pen. 
     But Sir, that is not it at all. If only you could speak to 
     the real managers and leaders of the Park Service. The career 
     professionals who actually run this outfit and who are the 
     ones responsible for getting the job done day to day, I have 
     confidence that you would hear that our concerns are valid.
       The United States of America owes and has pledged a 
     commitment to our military veterans. We have preferential 
     hiring regulations for veterans. A private contractor has no 
     such obligation. The Federal Government has the strongest 
     commitment to diversity and equality there is. While all 
     contractors are required by law to provide equal opportunity, 
     as we see in courts all across this land not all live up 
     fully to those requirements. We've all heard it, ``Social 
     Security is not a retirement plan.'' Yet while the Federal 
     work force is provided a fair retirement package, contractors 
     have very different priorities and their employees may or may 
     not have some type of retirement future. In recent years 
     Congress has wrestled with the issues of health care and 
     insurance. Federal employees have excellent health insurance 
     options. Again contractors have far different priorities, and 
     as we all know millions of people working in private industry 
     have no insurance. Federal employees that have been 
     ``competitively sourced'' out of their jobs may add to those 
     uninsured rolls. Years ago Congress passed the Davis Bacon 
     Act to ensure that some workers earned a fair, liveable, 
     negotiated wage. We employees of Lake Mead's Maintenance 
     Division are an example of Congress's will. But any 
     contractor that would replace us has no such obligation.
       However, rather than focus on issues we believe are 
     important but can be viewed as self serving, let me now turn 
     to why we are the best option for the public and this 
     country. The Park Service, in my 22 years of service, has 
     never been sufficiently funded. As an agency we have always 
     been on starvation rations and I can assure you that at my 
     level, Lake Mead N.R.A., there is absolutely no fat in the 
     system. For years our managers have been required to do more 
     with less. Being efficient is how we get the job done. Long 
     ago we made decisions to contract out certain maintenance 
     functions, namely garbage collection, lawn services, and 
     certain custodial work, because those things could be done 
     cost effectively by contractors. Unfortunately the 
     Competitive Sourcing study we now face gives us no credit for 
     this forward thinking.
       When it comes to saving the taxpayer's dollars nothing is 
     more efficient than having the work done for free. Nationwide 
     the National Park Service receives hundreds of thousands of 
     hours of donated labor. At Lake Mead N.R.A. alone last year 
     the public volunteered over 92,000 hours of which nearly

[[Page S11799]]

     21,000 hours were in performing maintenance work. People 
     will volunteer to work for the National Park Service 
     because they recognize that it is a noble and worthy gift 
     to this country. People do not, as we all know, volunteer 
     to work for private contractors. Despite this reality, the 
     A-76 process prohibits us from counting volunteers as part 
     of our efficiency/cost savings model.
       When it comes to getting the job done the National Park 
     Service's proud tradition of employees being ``generalists'' 
     make us extremely efficient. Here at Lake Mead N.R.A. even 
     though our maintenance employees are classified as 
     electricians, mechanics, operators, or whatever, the bottom 
     line is we get the work done by using all of our people in 
     the most efficient combinations. For example on a day when 
     there are no pressing plumbing issues we might use our 
     plumbers to help our carpenters pour concrete, rather than 
     hire day labor. Our Maintenance Division has the flexibility 
     and capacity to respond to any situation. Whether it be to 
     repair storm damage or to prepare for an unscheduled event 
     like the recent visit of the Secretary of the Interior to our 
     area, our work force is agile and immediately responsive. 
     With contractors however, if it isn't in the contract it 
     doesn't happen without delays, change orders, and 
     renegotiated fees.
       Beyond being a work force for our respective Parks, we 
     employees of the National Park Service are a national work 
     force. Lake Meed N.R.A. has sent people out over the years to 
     help with everything from oil spill clean ups to hurricane 
     relief. Every year Lake Meed employees are out there fighting 
     this Nation's wildland fires. This year, as always, we are on 
     the line protecting places like Denver, Colorado and Show 
     Low, Arizona. But who will serve and man the fire camps when 
     we are gone?
       It sounds cliche, but for the large majority of the 
     National Park Service's employees their work is more than 
     just a job. It is common place for people in my outfit to do 
     much more than just what is written in their position 
     descriptions. I am a carpenter. I also teach all of our 
     Rangers how to conduct water search and rescues. I'm not 
     special. The maintenance employees of Lake Meed N.R.A. serve 
     on the SCUBA team, on District fire engine companies, and 
     with search and rescue teams. We serve on Park committees and 
     often volunteer for special details. Because our maintenance 
     staff is slightly larger than the Ranger force, and we are in 
     the field all day, everyday, we effectively bolster their 
     ranks. We are often the first on the scene or the first 
     person contacted when incidents occur. We are trained in 
     first-aid and are first responders. We direct traffic at 
     accident sites, we help land medical evacuation helicopters, 
     and we help handle victims and patients. We are also the 
     years and ears for our Rangers. We often are the first ones 
     to discover trouble and report it. I don't think that it is 
     too far of a stretch to say that in some small way we are 
     even part of our homeland security. After all it could well 
     turn out the some maintenances worker at the Statue of 
     Liberty or Mount Rushmore and could see something that would 
     make a difference. But without speculating what could be, let 
     me say that we are essentially ambassadors for the National 
     Park Service. We are uniformed employees that are 
     constantly in the public eye. We are often the first and 
     sometimes only ``official'' contact visitors have with the 
     Service. We answer questions, give directions, are not all 
     that uncommonly change a tire or two. We do all of these 
     things and more, yet they are not in our job descriptions 
     and a contractor replacing us would not be obligated to 
     perform any of them.
       Up until now I have been talking about things that in some 
     way could be counted or measured. There is however one more 
     point I wish to make. Something that is there but can't be 
     bought or sold at any price. Every organization has a 
     culture, an ethic, and a personality. Employees of the 
     National Park Service are no different. We believe what we do 
     is special and important beyond merely just doing a good job. 
     We see ourselves as partners in the stewardship of this 
     Country's heritage. Virtually all embrace our over riding 
     mission from the 1916 act creating the National Park Service: 
     ``which purpose is to conserve the scenery and natural and 
     historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the 
     enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as 
     will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations.'' Our motivation is much different than those 
     who would replace us. The goal of commercial industry is 
     efficiency in pursuit of profit. That objective could not be 
     more different than our goal of preserving and protecting our 
     National treasures. I would strongly argue that no matter how 
     conscientious a contractor is, he could never match the 
     service and dedication we give to this Nation and our Parks. 
     The public instinctively recognizes that motivation counts. 
     As we saw with the issue of airport security, the public 
     wanted a Federal work force because they knew quality and 
     profit margins are opposing forces in the private sector.
       As a Statesman I know any action you take is taken in light 
     of the greater good of the Nation and Nevada. In this letter 
     I have tried to persuade you that Competitive Sourcing, while 
     it sounds good on paper, is not good for the National Park 
     Service or Lake Mead National Recreation Area. I have tried 
     to describe why we believe we are the best value for the 
     public, but most importantly I hope I have been able to 
     convey to you that we are a fundamental part of the National 
     Park Service's mission. It is our sweat and toil that keeps 
     this Park open. We are central in the 1916 act creating us. 
     We help preserve and protect this special place with our 
     tools and our skills.
       It is my understanding that the A-76 and Competitive 
     Sourcing processes have provisions to exclude certain work 
     because it is either inherently governmental or represents a 
     core function of the agency. It is also my understanding the 
     decision as to whether an activity should be retained in-
     house rests with the director of that agency. We hope that 
     you agree with us that the work we do is so closely related 
     to the public interest that it would be a mistake to put it 
     on the auction block. If you are sympathetic with our cause I 
     would like to most respectfully ask that we be removed from 
     further consideration in the Competitive Sourcing process. I 
     know not where your authority rests in matters concerning the 
     Executive Branch's internal business, but I do know right is 
     might.
       Finally, Sir, my apology for the length of this letter. I 
     know your time is extremely valuable and we the proud and 
     dedicated people of the Maintenance Division are most 
     grateful for your time and consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Chuck Luttrell,
                                       Carpenter, Lake Mead N.R.A.
       Also signed by 40 members of the Maintenance Staff of Lake 
     Mead National Recreation Area.

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

       This letter is intended to voice my outrage at President 
     Bush's plans for privatizing our Nation's National Park 
     System.
       The President's planned study and outsourcing of our 
     Nation's most valuable and symbolic resource should create 
     indignation in the heart of any American. Our parks have been 
     on the short end of the funding stick for years, but this 
     recent maneuver goes too far. As you know, private contracted 
     companies are only interested in generating the maximum 
     profit, no matter what corners and services get cut in the 
     process.
       Will you allow our National Parks to become another victim 
     of the ``Wal-Mart Syndrome''? Are we going to allow a system 
     that services our nation's last natural treasures with a 
     network of uninsured low wage caretakers from the lowest 
     contract bidder?
       The other factor that you should consider is the loss of 
     thousands of annual volunteer hours that our parks receive 
     from the American public. Hundreds of men and women give on 
     themselves each year to support our parks. However, no one 
     will wish to denote their personal time to maintain the 
     thousands of miles of roads and trails in our parks to the 
     benefit of some private company.
       The President has gotten his war and desired tax cuts, but 
     I urge you as my representative to put your foot down and 
     stop this plan from proceeding.

  Mr. President, from another citizen:

       As a resident of Nevada I find the proposed outsourcing of 
     National Park Service personnel to be outrageous and almost 
     offensive.
       Employees of the Park Service are driven by a respect for 
     the parks and love of what they do. Nevadans visiting our 
     national parks want members of the Park Service, not profit-
     minded corporations, enriching their experiences. I oppose 
     privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans, 
     endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.
       Too many private firms have gone this route, costing jobs 
     in local communities, opening doors for big business, while 
     causing the local economies to falter.
       We live, work, and play in this State. Many of the Park 
     personnel are our neighbors and friends. They care deeply 
     about what they do.
       I do not think a commercial corporation can do this--I have 
     visions of an HMO system for our National Lands and shudder. 
     Who gets the profit from this private enterprise? We've seen 
     enough of the favoritism the current administration employs, 
     and frankly, this seems another opportunity for more of the 
     same.
       I would certainly no longer volunteer for the Forest 
     Stewardship activities in the Lake Tahoe basin. I doubt that 
     many would. Volunteering time for a profitmaking concern is 
     not logical--why help a corporation that doesn't care diddly 
     about the land, the lakes, or the environment increase their 
     profits and not be paid for the ``contribution?''
       I'm one small voice but I am convinced that privatization 
     of our national park system would be another step to 
     demolishing what little resources we have now and what we can 
     hope to gain in the future to hold and treasure for future 
     generations.

  I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       As a resident of Nevada I find the proposed outsourcing of 
     National Park Service personnel and resources to be 
     outrageous and almost offensive.

[[Page S11800]]

       Senator Reid is so ``right on'' with the statement, 
     ``Employees of the Park Service are driven by a respect for 
     the parks and a love of what they do. Nevadans visiting our 
     National Parks want members of the Park Service, not profit-
     minded corporations, enriching their experiences.'' I oppose 
     privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans, 
     endanger our National Parks and waste taxpayer money.
       Too many private firms have gone this route, costing jobs 
     in local communities opening doors for big business while 
     causing the local economies to falter (GE in San Jose, CA, 
     outsourced their printing to a national company to save 
     money. It ultimately led to layoffs in the local community 
     and an increase in their operating expenses). We're having 
     enough trouble with the local and Nevada budget without 
     adding additional unemployment which will ultimately mean 
     increased tax burdens via supplemental income, job 
     retraining, and money for employees in Nevada going outside 
     the State to bigger business. This is not simply an issue to 
     be addressed for our own State, but for the Nation as a 
     whole.
       We live, work and play in this State. Many of the Park 
     personnel are our neighbors and friends. They care deeply 
     about what they do. (Their pay is relatively low for the 
     expertise they must have--they do it because they know the 
     value of protecting our parks, wildlife habitats, and the 
     environment.)
       I do NOT think a commercial corporation can do this.--I 
     have visions of an HMO system for our National Lands and 
     shudder. Who gets the profit from this private enterprise? 
     We've seen enough of the favoritism the current 
     administration employs, and frankly, this seems another 
     opportunity for more of the same. This aspect of what the 
     administration is proposing bears watching closely.
       What about the numbers of people and hours required to 
     maintain our Parks as best we can? With dollar to cost 
     averaging, they cannot factor in the vast number of hours 
     spent by volunteers to assist the Park Service. I would 
     certainly no longer volunteer for the Forest Stewardship 
     activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. I doubt that many would. 
     Volunteering time for a profit making concern is not 
     logical--why help a corporation that doesn't care diddly 
     about the land, the lakes or the environment increase their 
     profits and not be paid for your ``contribution?''
       I'm one small voice but I am convinced that privatization 
     of our National Park system would be another step to 
     demolishing what little resources we have now and what we can 
     hope to gain in the future to hold and treasure for future 
     generations.
       What can we do to help see this does not happen and ensure 
     that our Parks Service maintains its integrity?
           Thank you.
                                                      Lin Yeazell.

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

       Americans who love and use our nation's parks have been 
     wondering when former secretaries of the Interior were going 
     to speak. Two of them just did that Tuesday when Bruce 
     Babbitt and Stewart Udall challenged the attempt to privatize 
     the positions servicing the parks and the public visitors . . 
     . They both see the turning over of 70 percent of the jobs to 
     the private sector as both ``radical'' and ``reckless.''

  Among other things, O'Callaghan states:

       Privatization of services forces within our park system 
     would be but the first deadly step to turning them away from 
     public recreation into a big business. Next they could have 
     neon signs at park gates leading to Yellowstone Enron, RCA 
     Zion, U.S. Cellular, Crater Lake, or Death Valley Coors. How 
     about Basin Bank One? They already have signs in big city 
     ballparks and this could be their next big step.

  I ask unanimous consent the full context of the O'Callaghan editorial 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Las Vegas Sun, Aug. 1, 2003]

         Where I Stand--Mike O'Callaghan: These Are Your Parks

       Americans who love and use our nation's parks have been 
     wondering when former secretaries of the Interior were going 
     to speak. Two of them did just that Tuesday when Bruce 
     Babbitt and Stewart Udall challenged the attempt to privatize 
     the positions servicing the parks and their public visitors. 
     Both challenged the present secretary's attempt to have 
     almost all of the loyal public servants replaced by private 
     sector employees. They both see the turning over of 70 
     percent of these jobs to the private sector as both 
     ``radical'' and ``reckless.''
       This situation has outdoor enthusiasts recalling when 
     Interior Secretary Gale Norton's mentor, then-Interior boss 
     James Watt, had his own agenda that threatened public lands 
     and parks. That's when a former assistant secretary from the 
     Ford and Nixon years, Nathaniel Reed, recommended that 
     President Ronald Reagan fire Watt.
       It was in May 1981, during a speech, when Reed reminded his 
     fellow Republicans of their party's role in protecting public 
     lands. He started by telling them it was President Abraham 
     Lincoln who first withdrew Yosemite Valley for protection, 
     U.S. Grant's signing of a bill to create Yellowstone, and 
     Theodore Roosevelt's creation of the Forest Service and the 
     first national wildlife refuge. Yes, and it was Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower who created the Arctic Game Refuge that Norton now 
     wants to drill for oil.
       The Reed went to work on Watt saying, ``But two of Watt's 
     actions have convinced me that he is already a disaster as 
     secretary. One of these is his butchery of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund. The other is the talk that he delivered to 
     the Conference of National Park Concessioners on March 9 of 
     this year--surely one of the most fawning, disgusting 
     performances ever given by a Secretary of the Interior. He 
     was so eager to please that he all but gave away the park 
     system.''
       Privatization of the service forces within our park system 
     would be but the first deadly step to turning them away from 
     public recreation into a big business. Next they could have 
     neon signs at park gates leading to Yellowstone Enron, RCA 
     Zion, U.S. Cellular Crater Lake or Death Valley Coors. How 
     about Basin Bank One? They already have signs in big city 
     ballparks and this could be their next big step.
       If Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has his way this won't happen. 
     Reid's Park Professionals Protection Act, if passed, will 
     take care of this challenge. It is designed to ``prohibit the 
     study or implementation of any plan to privatize, divest, or 
     transfer any part of the mission, function, or responsibility 
     of the National Park Service.''
       In support of his bill, Reid gave some insight to the work 
     of park professionals when writing: ``Many of these Park 
     Service jobs have direct contact with visitors to our parks. 
     They not only collect fees and maintain parks but also give 
     directions, fight wildfires when necessary, and provide 
     emergency medical assistance to injured park visitors. They 
     are not required to do these things; they are driven by a 
     love for the parks and commitment to public service that 
     contractors lack.
       ``Privatizing the Park Service would jeopardize our 
     national parks. Members of the Park Service have a career-
     long interest in maintaining the parks and perform their jobs 
     because they are dedicated to serving the public. They often 
     go beyond the call of duty to fix a problem in the middle of 
     the night or change a tire for an unlucky park visitor. Can 
     we be sure that a contractor would do the same? No.''
       Friends of our national parks have suddenly awakened and 
     the gloves are off. Let's hope it's not too late. How about 
     Basin Bank One?

  Mr. REID. How much of my 25 minutes remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. REID. I repeat, anyone who supports the amendment of my friends, 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming, 
is voting to allow privatization of our national treasures to continue. 
Muddle it up--and that is what this amendment does--muddle it all you 
want, that is what it is. Some people think you can privatize 
everything. You cannot do that. You cannot do that. There are certain 
things that should be off limits. Our national treasures should be one 
of them.
  I repeat for the third time, anyone who votes for the amendment of my 
friends from Ohio and Wyoming is voting to privatize. Say it however 
you want, but Udall and Babbitt, former Secretaries of the Interior, 
recognize what is taking place. We have been told by my friends that 
there is no such privatization plan underway. If that is true, I point 
out there should be no objection to my amendment.
  Why study a plan, a privatization plan that will never be put into 
effect? My amendment puts a hold on the administration's privatization 
plans for this coming fiscal year.
  I am getting more concerned each day. This Constitution I carry 
around with me sets forth the separation of powers doctrine, executive 
branch of government, legislative branch of government, judicial branch 
of government, separate but equal. One is not superior to the other. I 
see more and more coming from this administration that the Congress is 
not relevant.
  If the President of the United States and his people want to study 
the privatization of our national treasures, let them come to Congress 
and get the money to do it. What are they doing? They are scavenging 
the money from present programs. I listed today a number not being done 
because they were using this money for studies.
  We have already learned from the Park Service director who works 
under George Bush that the current plan will reduce service to the 
public, negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service workforce, 
and will not save resources. This is something that should

[[Page S11801]]

be under the prerogative of the legislative branch.
  Let us provide money if it is such a good idea. Do not just steal it 
from other programs within the agencies. That is what they are doing. 
Therefore, we cannot do things to remove asbestos, to repair sewer 
systems, to take care of water systems, and to provide renovation in 
the parks.
  President Bush said when he took office that he wanted to reduce the 
backlog of renovation, repair, and maintenance that needed to be done 
in our parks. Well, that was doublespeak, I guess. That is ``1984'' 
revisited--Orwell's book--because, in fact, it has gone up. The backlog 
has gone up from 4.9 billion to 6.1 billion. Let's do it the right way. 
Let's protect our constitutional prerogatives.
  In 2002 and 2003 the agencies under the jurisdiction of this bill 
reprogrammed funds to study privatization. I repeat what the House 
committee report on the Interior bill noted: The massive privatization 
initiative appears to be ``on such a fast track that the Congress and 
the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and 
implications of the decisions being made'' by the administration. The 
committee's required programming guidelines are not being followed by 
the administration.
  That is report language from the Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives. Shouldn't we go along with them? The answer is yes. 
This was in the Republican committee report. That is why, in part, the 
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee prohibited the expenditure 
of funds for more studies in 2004. That is precisely what my amendment 
does. We agree with the House.
  Others have argued privatization will save money. The General 
Accounting Office estimated this may or may not be true. Studies of 
outsourcing at the Department of Defense, by contrast, where 
outsourcing is common, have been unable to demonstrate a single penny 
of cost saving. What we do know is that private companies will take 
care of our parks under their agenda.
  We should be very proud that since World War II veterans get a 
preference. If you served in the military, you apply for a job, you 
take a test, and we give you a few extra bonus points because you 
served our country. The private sector will not have to do that. They 
do not have to follow the same rules and regulations we have dealing 
with hiring the handicapped. They have all kinds of ways to cut corners 
in the private sector. It is not going to save money.
  What I believe, and lots of other people believe, is private 
companies will not take care of our parks and forests and other public 
lands with the same motivation the people who are now working there do. 
This has nothing to do with labor unions. I know there is a letter 
circulating saying this is an effort by the minority to protect labor 
unions. As I said earlier today, I read into the Record different 
entities which support this amendment: the Wilderness Society, the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks 
Conservation Association, the American Federation of Government 
Employees. There is one union and three public service groups. This has 
nothing to do with unions. It has everything to do with protecting our 
national treasures.
  I talked about one contractor who wasted $21,000 on a workable design 
to build courtesy docks on a lake in a park. Of course, the Park 
Service employees would have known that in a second. I talked about 
garbage collection. When the garbage was collected by Federal 
employees, it cost $150,000. Now it is done in the private sector, and 
it costs over $500,000.

  I talked about public employees at Shenandoah National Park who 
rescued a lost boy. An official at Glacier National Park, who 
contracted out their janitorial services, said: ``We didn't really save 
anything from a dollars and cents perspective. The costs came in the 
above and beyond things the Park Service janitors regularly did that 
were outside their regular job descriptions.''
  Privatization does not always work. It has not worked in Nevada at 
our two military bases. Privatization can affect the experience 
visitors have at our parks, as the Director of the Park Service has 
said. And I quoted that on two separate occasions just in the last few 
minutes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Although my friend 
from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming have said privatization 
saves money for maintenance projects at our parks, in every instance 
that has proven to be false. These agencies have reprogrammed millions 
of dollars in 2002 and 2003 from maintenance projects to perform these 
unauthorized maintenance studies. These funds were diverted from 
maintenance projects in our parks.
  I personally think privatization is a bad idea, but my amendment does 
not stop current studies. It prevents new ones from starting until 
Congress has more information about the administration's initiative and 
the effects it is having on our national parks and forests. They have 
already wasted all that money studying what goes on. Why don't they 
issue a report on that and stop, have a slowdown, a pause, a timeout on 
going forward with more study? That is what I have asked for in my 
amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend, the 
manager of this bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. I support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nevada. I must point out I think there are wonderful public servants in 
this country serving, day and night, the public interest, the public 
need. I think this simple, easy notion that you can just contract 
everything out and things will be better is really pretty much wrong-
headed.
  Oh, there may be some circumstances where it is appropriate, but I 
will tell you, you take a look at firefighters, the police officers, go 
back to 9/11 and talk to the folks who responded to the calls on 9/11 
when that terrible tragedy occurred in New York City, the devastating 
attack on this country--and, yes, those were public employees who were 
rushing up those stairs--firefighters, law enforcement men and women, 
rushing up those stairs--losing their lives, as the building was 
collapsing, trying to save lives. These were public employees. There 
are so many serving in so many different ways--the archaeologists and 
biologists working in the Park Service and in so many different areas.
  In this piece of legislation, one of the agencies had spent money 
they should not have spent studying contracting out when, in fact, they 
did not have the money for the kind of basic repairs and maintenance 
necessary to be done in the parks. So instead of doing what they should 
have done to keep the parks in the kind of shape they should be, they 
were using money to study: How can we contract these jobs out?
  Well, there are plenty of examples--my colleague from Nevada has used 
some of them--where you completely lose control with respect to 
contracting out. I just think it is important sometimes to stop and 
take a look at the workforce that belongs to the public sector, and to 
say that, in many instances--most instances--they do a wonderful job to 
serve this country very well, and there is no substitute--no, not 
contracting out, and no other substitute I know of--that could replace 
that group of dedicated public workers who serve this country day after 
day after day. That is why I am happy to support this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect--I have been 
somewhat impersonal, and I do not want to do that--the Park Service 
Director now is a woman by the name of Fran Mainella. I want the Record 
to reflect she is the one who has indicated the current plan would 
reduce services to the public, negatively impact the diversity of the 
Park Service workforce, and will not save resources.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Reid. This amendment is 
important and it's fitting that we discuss this measure this week, just 
days after the 10th anniversary of National Public Lands Day.
  On Saturday, thousands of Americans around the country contributed 
their time and labor to help improve our shared national lands. In my 
home State of Washington, volunteers restored trails, planted trees, 
and improved oyster habitat, to name a few

[[Page S11802]]

projects. I commend everyone who was involved in this effort for their 
commitment to protecting and preserving our public lands.
  Today's debate is about the many thousands of federal employees who 
dedicate themselves to this important cause every day. In our national 
parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other public 
lands, these men and women work every day of the year to protect and 
preserve these national treasures.
  An article by Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist, Joel Connelly, 
quoted Stewart Udall, the Interior Department boss under Presidents 
Kennedy and Johnson as saying ``These are the best people in the 
government . . . It's extraordinary they would pick on this Teddy 
Roosevelt agency.''
  Unfortunately, the Bush administration has proposed a rule change 
that would radically alter the management of our public lands. The 
President has proposed ``outsourcing'' important stewardship roles to 
for-profit contractors. Under his proposal, private contractors could 
fill more than 800,000 jobs, including posts in the National Park 
Service like at Olympic National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and U.S. Geological Survey, among other agencies. In my home State of 
Washington, this proposal could affect 10,000 government-wide jobs, 
including 348 national park biologists, educators, and maintenance 
staff.
  I believe this is the wrong approach. When it comes to our public 
lands, our first concern should be protecting our national treasures by 
ensuring the highest level of natural resource stewardship.
  There are many legitimate questions as to whether this outsourcing 
scheme would even save any money. In June, the General Accounting 
Office concluded a comprehensive 2-year study on outsourcing and found 
that ``competitions took longer than projects, costs and resources 
required for competitions were underestimated, [and] determining and 
maintaining reliable estimates of savings was difficult.''
  Even though the long term ``savings'' are suspect, we know for sure 
that outsourcing is hurting our national parks. Park Service Director 
Mainella estimated that the first round of competitive sourcing would 
cost $3 million, much of which will have to come out of maintenance. 
Even though Mount Rainier was taken off the list of parks subject to 
outsourcing this year, Park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga had to set 
aside $335,000 of badly needed money for park maintenance to pay for a 
privatization study. The cost of simply studying these Park Service 
positions is estimated to begin at $3,000 and go up from there.
  The Federal workers entrusted with the preservation of our public 
lands can't simply be replaced by private workers. They are dedicated 
professionals who know the parks and public lands better than anyone, 
and they are not beholden to private interests who seek to exploit our 
public lands.
  Don't just take my word for it. Listen to what 145 former National 
Park Service employees--including four former directors--said in a 
recent letter to President Bush decrying his proposal:
  While publicizing glossy reports to convince the public that your 
Administration cares about this country's national treasures, you are 
strangling the very core of park stewardship, sidestepping the 
important issues that are facing the parks and ignoring the operational 
budgets of the parks. We are seeing evidence at every turn that when 
private for-profit interests vie with resources of the park, the 
private interests, and not principle, governs.
  Even the current Director of the National Park Service, Fran 
Mainella, disagrees with the administration's approach. Earlier this 
year, in an intra-departmental memo, she expressed her concerns about 
the President's initiative. She noted that because the administration 
did not seek funding to cover the costs of the thousands of competitive 
sourcing studies it has mandated, those costs must be absorbed by 
reductions in park operations and other worthy activities, which will 
result in reduced visitor services and the deferment of essential park 
maintenance.
  Losing current National Park Service employees will also cause our 
national parks to lose a great deal of institutional knowledge to 
individuals who may not have training in these fields. National Park 
Service employees, who often live in rural communities surrounding the 
parks, are dedicated public servants committed to preserving our parks 
for all Americans' enjoyment and benefit now and in the future. They 
are also versatile and provide irreplaceable services during 
emergencies. The same employee that helps maintain park infrastructure, 
is also one of the first firefighters on the scene, providing 
invaluable information about the parks' terrain.
  Without this amendment, the Park Service could also lose tens of 
thousands of volunteers. These are dedicated citizens who contribute 
their time to help out in some of the most beautiful parts of the 
country. I have heard from a number of my constituents that they 
volunteer because they feel they are sharing their love of the outdoors 
with others and maintaining our public lands for future generations. 
But they warned me they would feel very different about giving their 
time to help support some for-profit contractor.
  Conservation and protection of our public lands is not a partisan 
issue. The majestic herd of Roosevelt Elk in my home State's Olympic 
National Park is a fitting reminder that throughout the past century, 
Republicans and Democrats have been able to come together to preserve 
our Nation's public lands.
  In that spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this amendment, and vote to prevent the ``outsourcing'' of 
the stewardship of our natural treasures.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced article in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 30, 2003]

  In The Northwest: `Outsourcing' a sweeping attack on national parks

                           (By Joel Connelly)

       National parks are ``the best idea America ever had,'' 
     wrote author Wallace Stegner, an idea that has spread around 
     the globe since Yellowstone became the world's first national 
     park 130 years ago.
       Lately, the Bush administration has come up with what it 
     believes is a better idea: ``outsourcing'' key work performed 
     by the National Park Service to private contractors.
       It appears to be an initial step toward privatizing 
     management at the crown jewels of America's natural beauty 
     and historic sites where our country's freedom was won and 
     the Union sustained.
       A hundred park employees recently signed a protest letter 
     to the president. Mount Rainier National Park has been a 
     center of resistance, so much so that Park Service Director 
     Fran Mainella just visited.
       Yesterday, two Arizona outdoorsmen and long-serving 
     Interior secretaries, who supervised the park system, broke 
     their silence in a telephone interview with a half-dozen 
     reporters around the country.
       ``What we are talking about is an attempt to dismantle the 
     National Park Service as we know it today. It turns its back 
     on 100 years, and a national park system that is the envy of 
     the world,'' said Bruce Babbitt, Interior secretary from 1993 
     to 2001.
       Added Stewart Udall, Interior's boss under Presidents 
     Kennedy and Johnson, ``These are the best people in the 
     government . . . It's extraordinary they would pick on this 
     Teddy Roosevelt agency.''
       In an April 4 memo, Mainella disclosed that 900 park jobs 
     across the nation are marked for ``direct conversion'' to 
     private contractors and that an additional 1,323 jobs are to 
     be bid out in the next few months. The first phase of 
     ``outsourcing'' will privatize about 13 percent of the Park 
     Service's permanent work force.
       The administration is not talking just about big road 
     repairs, or lodging and food services, jobs already performed 
     by private contractors.
       Quite the contrary. The initial privatization list includes 
     hundreds of park archaeologists, biologists and historians--
     the very people whose professional judgment is needed to 
     safeguard park resources.
       As a Mount Rainier climbing ranger, and later 
     superintendent of Virginia's much-visited Shenandoah National 
     Park, Bill Wade learned care in where to put his feet and his 
     choice of words.
       At a recent U.S. Senate hearing, however, the now-retired 
     second-generation Park Service employee cut loose with a 
     scathing critique.
       ``Never before have we seen so many simultaneous assaults 
     on the purposes for which the national park system exists,'' 
     said Wade. ``Such assaults are undermining the role of the 
     National Park Service professionals who steward our great 
     natural and cultural legacy. Such assaults are contributing 
     to the failure of the Park Service to carry out its

[[Page S11803]]

     intended mission on behalf of America's public.''
       Why is the administration doing this?
       After all, candidate George W. Bush spoke at Haskel Slough 
     near Monroe in 2000, pledging a major drive to complete 
     urgently needed maintenance at the national parks. First lady 
     Laura Bush has spent this week hiking with old school friends 
     in Olympic National Park.
       Due to ``outsourcing'' studies, moreover, the Park Service 
     has warned supervisors in the West that their maintenance-
     repair budget would be scaled back by more than 25 percent--
     largely to pay for consultants. Mount Rainier, with a $100 
     million backlog, has been forced to put off urgently needed 
     projects.
       An administration management agenda for fiscal year 2002 
     gives the rationale: ``Competition promotes innovation, 
     efficiency and greater effectiveness. For many activities, 
     citizens do not care whether the private or public sector 
     provides the service or administers the program.''
       One wonders whether the right-wing ideologue who wrote this 
     has ever visited a national park. He or she would discover:
       The National Park Service is an agency of legendary esprit 
     de corps, in which people move around the country, frequently 
     work extra hours and endure low pay for love of the job.
       Park jobs are not compartmentalized and suitable for 
     ``outsourcing.'' Rangers do a range of jobs for rescue to 
     firefighting to interpretation. At Shenandoah, for instance, 
     park maintenance staff--trained as emergency medical 
     technicians--are frequently first to the scene of traffic 
     accidents on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
       The public trusts rangers, flocks to interpretive programs 
     and expects park resources to be maintained. National parks 
     are not amusement parks.
       Efficiency is not the end-all of park management. Sure, it 
     would have been more efficient to cut a wide swath of trees 
     to widen state Route 410 in Mount Rainier National Park. It 
     would also have created an eyesore in the midst of a scenic 
     treasure.
       The protest against ``outsourcing'' has made an impact.
       While slashing worthy programs such as AmeriCorps and the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, the House of 
     Representatives has voted to block new privatizing studies.
       The administration has responded with a hard line: ``If the 
     final version of the (appropriations) bill were to contain 
     such a provision, the president's senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto the bill,'' the Office of Management 
     and Budget said in a statement.
       Curiously, however, Mainella showered Mount Rainier with 
     reassurances on the eve of her visit, saying that no jobs at 
     the park would be reviewed for private-sector replacement for 
     two years.
       Can we trust these people? About as far as I can hand-roll 
     a snowplow.
       Looking at similar moves with the U.S. Forest Service and 
     Bureau of Land Management, what's likely unfolding is a 
     sweeping, below-the-radar-screen attack on public lands and 
     public land managers.
       As Babbitt put it yesterday, ``The only thing that will 
     stop this radical, reckless effort to take things apart is 
     public opinion.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and a half minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take just a portion of that. I 
think we have covered this issue fairly well. I would like to comment 
on a couple things that were said on the other side of the aisle. The 
Senator said we are going to contract everything out. That is part of 
the problem here, making statements like that which are absolutely 
untrue. It makes it kind of tough to understand what is going on. No 
one is talking about contracting everything out. No one is even talking 
about privatizing. We are talking about competitive competition. So I 
think we ought to be just a little more careful about that.
  This idea that this is being done entirely by the executive branch, 
remember, we passed a law in 1998 called the FAIR Act. You know what 
that was. It authorized what we are doing here now. Circular A-76 has 
been on the books from Congress since 1976. Congress passed that. 
Surprising as it may seem, a lot of people in Congress think the 
private sector is a good thing, that it does a pretty good job. That is 
kind of what this country is about, the private sector. This idea that 
somehow you hire people and take away all their benefits--the Service 
Acquisition Act, passed by Congress, ensures that health benefits and 
pay are not reduced in Government contracts to the private sector. 
Those are things that are done there.
  We are not talking about contracting everything. Here are the 
positions being evaluated to give you some idea. From U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National Park 
Service, maintenance vehicles, lawns, bathrooms, air-conditioners--is 
that going to change the emotions in the park? I don't think so--Bureau 
of Reclamation, Job Corps centers; Bureau of Land Management, 
maintenance vehicles, bathrooms, air-conditioners, geographic 
information services. These are the kinds of jobs that are done all the 
time in the private sector, the professionals, many of them in the 
private sector.
  It is too bad we continue to say some of these things that just 
aren't the case. I hope we continue to provide, as the Congress has 
said, an opportunity to have competition for some of the activities 
within Government, and those that can be done better in the private 
sector can be done. Those savings then will go to offset some of the 
backlog of the Park Service that has existed without any competition. 
This is kind of where we are.
  I certainly encourage my fellow Senators to support our second-degree 
amendment when it comes to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. 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

[[Page S11804]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend, 
Senator Thomas, from Wyoming. He has always been so cordial and polite 
to me, as I am sure he is to everyone. He is a real advocate. My point 
is, he is absolutely wrong on this issue. His argument makes our point. 
He says: We are not privatizing. But that is what they are doing. They 
are studying all these different programs, and the purpose is to 
privatize.
  The FAIR legislation: Of course, I understand what that bill was, but 
it also took into consideration that the money was to be appropriated 
to do the studies, not to be scavenged from other operations.
  I read only one editorial from the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, but there 
are others. Here is one from the Los Angeles Times: ``Keep Pros Who 
Love Parks.''
  The first paragraph reads:

       In a memo to her bosses at the Department of the Interior, 
     National Park Service Director Fran Mainella said the 
     administrative costs of a plan to contract out some Park 
     Service jobs to private companies could seriously cut the 
     already rock-bottom level of visitor services and seasonal 
     operations. Unfortunately, that would only be one piece of 
     the damage.

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

       The nation's most important natural and historic sites 
     deserve to be protected by workers with expertise, experience 
     and dedication to the parks. They are there now, and in the 
     proud green uniform of the National Park Service.

  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 26, 2003]

                        Keep Pros Who Love Parks

       Jobs targeted for possible outsourcing--as many as 4 
     percent of the Park Service total--include firefighters, with 
     40 positions at risk in California alone. Others such as fee 
     collectors and maintenance workers don't sound so bad as 
     candidates for contracting out, through visitors do turn to 
     the collectors for advice as they enter the park.
       However, the list also covers Park Service scientists and 
     specialists such as archaeologists, museum curators, 
     historians and cartographers. Where will they find competent 
     private experts who will work for the salaries of the current 
     Park Service employees, or less?
       These scientists are passionate about protecting park 
     resources from the effects of development, whereas the Bush 
     administration often has sided with economic interests.
       High-level Interior Department officials--up to and 
     including Secretary Gale A. Norton--repeatedly have trashed 
     the scientific work underlying such sound decisions as the 
     2000 Park Service ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National 
     Park. The ban is being reversed in response to objections 
     from tourist businesses in the region.
       Similarly, Yosemite-area businesses are campaigning for 
     more parking and reconstruction of campgrounds along the 
     Merced River in Yosemite Valley that were flooded out in 
     1997. They want to sell the additional campers beer, 
     groceries and gasoline. Naturalists correctly argue that the 
     campsites should not be there--that the riverbank should be 
     restored to its natural beauty. The region's congressman, 
     siding with business, is pushing for their return.
       The nation's most important natural and historic sites 
     deserve to be protected by workers with expertise, experience 
     and dedication to the parks. They are there now, in the proud 
     green uniform of the National Park Service. There they should 
     stay.

  Mr. REID. A small newspaper, smaller than the Las Vegas Sun, one from 
Missoula--of course, Missoula, MT--also talks about how wrong it is. 
They are so specific, and they know because they live in Glacier 
National Park. They say outsourcing simply is not good.
  There are editorials from all over the country that talk about how 
bad an idea this is. Remember, anyone voting for the amendment offered 
by my friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, is voting to outsource, to 
privatize our national treasures. You can say: I really didn't mean to 
do that; all I did was want studies to be completed.
  That isn't what we have here. We have agreed that they can complete 
the studies they have already engaged in, even though they stole the 
money from other things that needed to be done within the entities. But 
to vote for the Voinovich amendment is to vote for privatization. To 
vote for the Reid amendment is to vote for a time-out, a pause.


                           Amendment No. 1740

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 10 minutes equally divided on 
the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the first 3 minutes of my 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1740 is straightforward. 
It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior, working through the 
Park Service, from issuing any permit allowing a special event on The 
National Mall unless the permit expressly prohibited the use of 
structures or signs bearing commercial advertising.
  The amendment does provide that there can be sponsor recognition of 
special events, but it makes clear we intend to have the Park Service 
interpret that in a way that is consistent with the special nature of 
The National Mall.
  We would also require that the lettering or design that identifies 
the sponsor not be more than a third the size of the lettering 
identifying what the special event is.
  I have shown this photograph before. I will show it again so people 
have an idea of what prompted my amendment. This is a special event 
that the Park Service approved and issued a permit for a couple of 
weeks ago on The National Mall. This event was a football and music 
festival entitled ``NFL Kick-off Live From The National Mall Presented 
by Pepsi Vanilla''.
  This photograph is from the Washington Post. This is an enlarged 
photograph that was in the Washington Post. You can see that there are 
a whole series of banners up and down The Mall. There is one for 
Verizon, and this one is for Pepsi Vanilla, and here is a giant 
football with NFL signs on it.
  It seemed clear to me that this was commercial advertising any way 
you look at it. The Park Service, unfortunately, takes the position 
that this was entirely appropriate. No commercial advertising here. 
This is sponsor recognition. We were giving some recognition to those 
that were underwriting this important event for a public purpose. You 
may say, what was the public purpose? Well, it was to take pride in 
America--you can find that phrase way down here--and this is the idea 
that there is voluntarism, and that was the reason we opened this up 
with the NFL. It gave them a permit for 17 days, during which time they 
could block off The Mall, prepare for the festival, have the festival, 
and break down the equipment after the festival and so on.
  I will show the other photograph. This is another photograph that 
shows the fence that was put around The Mall, with advertisements for 
AOL, Pepsi Vanilla, Coors, and Verizon. This, of course, was blocking 
access to The Mall for the public. If you wanted to walk or jog on The 
Mall, or do anything else, you were prohibited from doing so during 
this period.

[[Page S11805]]

  We need to clarify what the law is. My amendment will do that. It 
says we don't want commercial advertisement on The Mall. I always 
thought that was the policy, and, up until now, I think it has 
generally been the policy. But it is clearly not recognized that way by 
the current Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Park Service. 
We need to clarify that.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It puts into law a 
prohibition of commercial advertising on The National Mall for the 
first time.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment that is 
before us. I was concerned when I first talked to the Senator about it. 
I was concerned that it would be difficult to differentiate between 
commercial signs, advertising, on the one hand, and sponsors, for 
instance, the Race for the Cure, on the other. However, we talked 
together about that. We talked with the Park Service about that, and I 
believe the wording of the amendment is such that that kind of emotion, 
that kind of recognition of the sponsors for voluntary events would be 
allowable.
  I am chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee and we deal with The 
Mall, and we have had several hearings and considerable consideration 
about what we do on The Mall and how many buildings there are and how 
it is used. So I think it is important to set standards for the use of 
something that is very unique and in the national interest.
  I think the Senator has a worthwhile amendment, and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 3 minutes 40 
seconds. The Senator from New Mexico has 41 seconds.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield part of my time to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support and cosponsored the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Mexico. I think it is not only written 
appropriately at this point and has proper safeguards, but I think it 
is also a necessary amendment for the reasons that my colleague from 
New Mexico has described.
  I understand my colleague from Wyoming, who is chairman of the 
subcommittee on these issues, and his statement as well. If we pass 
this amendment with this particular wording, I think it accomplishes 
something important, and I am happy to cosponsor it and support it.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Thomas and 
Senator Burns for their support and, of course, Senator Dorgan, who is 
a cosponsor.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka, who is the ranking member 
on the National Parks Subcommittee in our Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the broad support we are 
receiving for the amendment, and I hope all Senators will vote in 
favor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Campbell

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dodd
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1740) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1753

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided prior 
to a vote on a motion to table the Boxer amendment No. 1753.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, colleagues, I hope Members will vote 
against the motion to table my amendment. I am simply trying to strike 
section 333, which is an anti-environmental rider that singles out 39 
timber sales in the Tongass Forest and only allows a 30-day appeals 
process for citizens, small businesses, and community groups to act. It 
also says a judge must act in 180 days, pushing this ahead of other 
pending cases.
  Now, why is it important to all of us? If you can change the rules in 
the largest temperate rain forest in the world, think about what would 
happen to you in your States. We have not had any hearings on this 
issue. I don't think this is the right way to legislate.
  If it is a question of jobs, there are 300 million board feet of 
timber in the Tongass that could be cut today. There are no lawsuits 
pending on those.
  This is a process question. I hope colleagues would not take away the 
rights of their constituents.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from California, Ms. Boxer, 
has offered an amendment seeking to strike expedited judicial review of 
timber sales from U.S. Forest Service Regional X, covering the Tongass 
National Forest in Alaska.
  While some use flowery terms to characterized the Tongass National 
Forest as the ``last intact temperate rain forest'' or the ``crown 
jewel of our national forest system,'' they merely gloss over the 
realities of our forest. The Sierra Club, the National Wildlife 
Federation, and others use overstated hyperbole meant to shift the 
focus of the debate from what we truly ought to be looking; that is, 
creating more jobs in America.
  For months now Senators from the other party have come to floor to 
decry job losses in the United States--lost jobs that they somehow 
blame on President Bush.
  Yet they need only look at the pursuit of their own policies that 
have led to our increased reliance on foreign natural resources and 
lost economic opportunity.
  Alaska has the highest unemployment rate in the country, and every 
time I go back home to see my constituents--which is quite frequently--
they ask me how we can create more jobs.
  In Alaska we used to have thousands of timber and timber-related 
jobs. Now

[[Page S11806]]

we have less than one thousand. That is criminal in a State that boasts 
the largest single national forest in the country.
  The Tongass Forest is large enough to set aside land for future 
generations while also providing valuable timber for American 
manufacturing and U.S. jobs. Allow me to put it in perspective. In 2002 
there were 110,000 people employed by the timber industry in 
California. In Alaska just 650 people were employed in the timber 
industry in 2002--again, in a State with the largest national forest. 
These are statistics from the American Forest and Paper Association.
  In 2002, California produced 2.63 billion board feet of timber. 
During the same time in Alaska just 30 million board feet were 
produced. That figure makes California the fourth largest wood producer 
in the U.S. That means during FY 2002 Region X (the largest region in 
the Forest Service system) produced the least amount of timber--
(Source: U.S. Forest Service).
  While the Senator is offering an amendment that she thinks is the 
right thing to do to protect the environment, she must realize that 
this issue has been debated for literally decades, going back to when 
Alaska was a territory. Just as timber harvests take place in other 
national forests the Government saw fit to allow some limited, but 
sustainable, timber harvests to take place in the Tongass. 
Unfortunately some misguided and illegal policy changes under the 
Clinton administration set back timber jobs in Alaska during the 1990s. 
Fortunately the courts and the current administration have seen fit to 
reverse those rulings to follow the law. Unfortunately there are those 
who want to continue filing lawsuit after lawsuit, clogging up an 
already overpacked docket to keep Alaskans out of work.
  I would say to those who continue to criticize job losses in the 
United States that one way to overcome them is to allow people to get 
back to work.
  The problem is we can't get people back to work with the continued 
threat of frivolous litigation. The Senator's amendment seeks to allow 
people to further burden our courts under false pretenses of saving 
Alaska from Alaskans. It is an insult to me and my constituents to hear 
people attack our State.
  We have a right to good jobs--just like those in California. We have 
a right to send our kids to good schools, just like in California. We 
have a right to have parks and hospitals and all the other 
infrastructure that is in the towns and cities in California, but our 
towns in Alaska needs jobs and industry to make them a reality.
  As a State in this Union we entered to become an equal among equals. 
But that does not mean that we don't know what is in our best interest 
as a State and as individuals. The amendment my colleague offers seeks 
to provide more opportunities for litigation after we have already 
undergone lawsuit after lawsuit and lengthy administrative processes.
  The language in the current bill does not cut off access to the 
courts. It merely requires that any application for judicial review be 
filed within 30 days after exhaustion of the Forest Service appeals 
process. Currently I am told the time limit is 6 years. The language 
applies for Record of Decisions for any timber sales in Region X of the 
Forest Service that had a Notice of Intent prepared on or before 
January 1, 2003.
  The language does not restrict the right of the public to litigate 
timber sales; it simply speeds up the process by encouraging the court 
to render a decision within 180 days of the application.
  Since 1990, at least nine timber sales on the Tongass have been 
litigated. Individual sales have been held up sometimes for years 
during the litigation process. What the families and the people who 
depend on the timber industry seek is simply some finality and a 
reasonable time for decisions.
  According the Alaska Forest Association, my State has lost over 1,400 
jobs in the recent years and the timber industry has ground down to a 
virtual standstill. Only 650 people remain employed in an industry that 
was once year round and spread throughout the region. Whole communities 
have vanished.
  These people are not threatening the last remaining temperate rain 
forest in the United States, but their ability to provide for their 
families and for their families to have a future is threatened by 
lawyers and protracted litigation. The protracted litigation and the 
time to resolve that litigation could cost them their livelihoods and 
their family owned businesses. The ripple effect extends way beyond the 
individuals and the employees--it rips into the fabric of the 
communities in southeast Alaska. These are the things that the language 
of the appropriations bill seeks to address.
  I support that language in the bill because I have seen firsthand 
what the endless litigation has done to my communities. I oppose the 
Boxer amendment because it seeks to empower more frivolous law suits 
and more delays. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to 
support more jobs in Alaska and America.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment has nothing to do with 
environmental concerns. This is a judicial process amendment. These 
contracts for timber go through a review process involving an EIS, then 
public hearings, then an opportunity to appeal to the Forest Service, 
and then an opportunity to file, administratively, appeals within the 
Forest Service.
  After a final record of decision, they have 6 years to take it to the 
district court. All we are asking is that be shortened to the normal 
process of 30 days and the process for appeal from the administrative 
court be 30 days and the court take no longer than 180 days to review 
that appeal. It does not limit the time for the appeal to the circuit 
court but is strictly a judicial process shortening the time.
  It now takes 3 to 4 years for every contract before we can possibly 
try to use those contracts to harvest the trees, within 676,000 acres 
out of 17 million acres. We need this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the vote be a 10-minute vote and 
all succeeding votes be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dodd
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S11807]]

  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1754, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided prior 
to a vote on the Voinovich amendment No. 1754.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, this second-degree amendment on which we 
will be voting, the reporting requirement, addresses a number of 
concerns various Senators have had with competitive sourcing.
  The second-degree amendment does the following: It requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to annually report on its competitive 
sourcing efforts--including a list of the total number of competitions 
completed, a list of the total number of competitions announced and the 
activities covered, and a list of the total number of full-time 
equivalent Federal employees studied under completed competitions.
  The second-degree amendment is a responsible measure that will bring 
additional accountability and transparency to public-private 
competitions.
  Two weeks ago, the House overwhelmingly adopted a similar reporting 
requirement during consideration of the Treasury/Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  The Thomas-Voinovich amendment will give Congress additional 
oversight of competitive sourcing, unlike the Reid amendment that stops 
it altogether. Competitive sourcing allows tax dollars to be used more 
efficiently, more effectively. It will improve agency efficiency. I 
urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, anyone who supports this amendment is 
supporting contracting out. All you have to do is read their amendment 
and that is what it says. They say the President will issue reports. He 
has not done that. That is the only thing it does. It allows 
contracting out to go forward without authorization of Congress and 
without any appropriation for the studies to be taken. Remember what 
they are doing now is scavenging the money from other work that needs 
to be done within the various public land entities. It is unfair. It is 
wrong. Anyone who supports the Voinovich amendment supports contracting 
out, without question. I urge a ``nay'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1754.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Dodd
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1754), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. ____. Not later than December 31 of each year, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the competitive sourcing activities on the list required 
     under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note) that were performed 
     for the Department of the Interior during the previous fiscal 
     year by Federal Government sources. The report shall 
     include--
       (1) the total number of competitions completed;
       (2) the total number of competitions announced, together 
     with a list of the activities covered by such competitions;
       (3) the total number of full-time equivalent Federal 
     employees studied --under completed competitions;
       (4) the total number of full-time equivalent Federal 
     employees being --studied under competitions announced, but 
     not completed;
       (5) the incremental cost directly attributable to 
     conducting the competitions identified under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), including costs attributable to paying outside 
     consultants and contractors;
       (6) an estimate of the total anticipated savings, or a 
     quantifiable --description of improvements in service or 
     performance, derived from completed competitions;
       (7) actual savings, or a quantifiable description of 
     improvements in --service or performance, derived from the 
     implementation of competitions completed after May 29, 2003;
       (8) the total projected number of full time equivalent 
     Federal employees covered by competitions scheduled to be 
     announced in the fiscal year covered by the next report 
     required under this section; and
       (9) a general description of how the competitive sourcing 
     decisionmaking processes of the Department of the Interior 
     are aligned with the strategic workforce plan of that 
     department.


                           Amendment No. 1731

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate evenly 
divided on the Reid amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, everyone should understand that what has 
just taken place is to allow privatization to continue in our public 
land agencies. Clearly, that is what happened. I hope the Members of 
this body will approve the Reid amendment and allow this matter to go 
to conference. It appears this last vote was a cover-your-rear-end 
vote. So we probably will lose on this amendment. I think it is a 
shame.
  I read into the Record how people who work at the agencies feel, 
editorial comments from all over the country, and comments from private 
people who know how important the parks are. Veterans preference would 
not be there; disabilities act would not apply. There are so many 
things that are unfair to the dedicated people working for our public 
land agencies.
  I hope there will be a ``yea'' vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that was just adopted 
makes sense out of competitive sourcing, makes the agencies accountable 
for competitive sourcing, and makes it part of the shaping of their 
workforce. It is long overdue.
  The Reid amendment completely eliminates competitive sourcing period. 
It leaves it out. If you look at other Federal agencies that have 
competitively sourced, for example at the Department of Defense, in 
about 98 percent of streamlined competitions--and these all have to be 
commercial functions--98 percent of the time, the Federal workers win 
the competition. They win because they come together, use quality 
management, and figure out a way to do the job better than they were 
doing it before.
  Anyone who supported our amendment should vote no on this amendment 
which just eliminates competitive sourcing altogether and is not good 
public policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1731.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S11808]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 361 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Dodd
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1731) was rejected.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1750

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1750 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1750.

  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 85, line 21, insert after ``until expended'' the 
     following:

     : Provided, That the Department of Energy shall develop, with 
     an opportunity for public comment, procedures to obtain oil 
     for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a manner that 
     maximizes the overall domestic supply of crude oil (including 
     amounts stored in private sector inventories) and minimizes 
     the costs to the Department of Interior and the Department of 
     Energy of acquiring such oil (including foregone revenues to 
     the Treasury when oil for the Reserve is obtained through the 
     Royalty-in-Kind program), consistent with national security. 
     Such procedures shall include procedures and criteria for the 
     review of requests for the deferrals of scheduled deliveries. 
     No later than 120 days following the enactment of this Act of 
     Department shall propose and no later than 180 days following 
     the enactment of this Act the Department shall publish and 
     follow such procedures when acquiring oil for the Reserve.

  Mr. LEVIN. This amendment establishes a cost-effective program to 
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand it has been cleared 
by both of the managers.
  Since late 2001 the Department of Energy--DOE--has been steadily 
adding oil to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in order to 
fill the reserve to its maximum capacity of 700 million barrels. In 
late 2001, the reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil; today 
holds nearly 620 million barrels. DOE anticipates that at the current 
fill rate it will reach its goal of 700 million barrels sometime in 
2005.
  Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without 
regard to the price of oil. Prior to that time, DOE sought to acquire 
more oil when the price of oil was low, and less oil when the price of 
oil was high. In early 2002, however, DOE abandoned this cost-based 
approach and instead adopted the current approach, which does not 
consider cost when buying oil for the SPR. Since over this period the 
price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil 
markets have been tight, this cost-blind approach has increased the 
costs of the program to the taxpayer and, of great significance, put 
further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost oil and 
gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses.
  The bipartisan amendment Senator Collins and I are offering today is 
simple. It would encourage DOE to consider the price and supply of oil 
when buying oil for the SPR. It would direct DOE to minimize the 
program's cost to the taxpayer while maximizing our energy security.
  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations spend a year and a half 
looking at oil markets and the SPR. In March of this year my staff on 
the subcommittee published the repot of the investigation. In summary 
our investigation found:

       In 2002, DOE began to fill the SPR without regard to the 
     price of oil.
       Filling the SPR in tight market increased U.S. oil prices 
     and hurt U.S. consumers.
       Filling the SPR regardless of oil prices increased taxpayer 
     costs.
       Despite its high cost, filling the SPR [in 2002] did not 
     increase overall U.S. oil supplies.

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

       DOE should defer all SPR deliveries . . . until near-term 
     crude oil prices fall and U.S. commercial inventories 
     increase.
       DOE should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the previous 
     SPR fill policy compared to the current policy.
       DOE should restore its SPR business procedures allowing 
     deferrals of oil deliveries to the SPR when crude oil prices 
     are high or commercial crude oil supplies are tight.

  Both Houses of Congress support the goal of filling the SPR to its 
capacity. I support this goal, too. This amendment seeks to further 
this goal and our national energy security at least cost to the 
taxpayers. For many years the SPR program followed the types of 
procedures that DOE has recently abandoned. The SPR program office 
itself has recommended the DOE return to using these market-based 
procedures. Under the amendment DOE would continue to have the 
discretion to determine when to buy oil for the SPR, and under which 
procedures, but DOE would be encouraged to use that discretion in a way 
to minimize costs while maximizing national energy security.
  Any successful businessperson knows the saying, ``Buy low, sell 
high.'' This is as true for oil as it is for pork bellies and stocks. 
It is as true for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as it is for any 
business involving a commodity. Indeed, in a recent presentation to 
other countries on how to create and manage a strategic reserve, DOE 
itself states: ``The Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost 
Control.'' DOE identifies the major cost elements of a strategic 
reserve as capital costs, maintenance costs, and oil acquisition costs. 
Once constructed, the capital costs and the maintenance costs are 
largely fixed. The main variable cost, therefore, is the cost of 
acquiring oil

[[Page S11809]]

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

       Let the markets determine your buying pattern.
       Buy in weak markets.
       Delay deliveries during strong markets.
       Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.

  Prior to early 2002 DOE followed this sensible strategy when 
acquiring oil for the SPR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
excerpts from this DOE presentation to other countries be entered into 
the record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Part of this strategy--allowing deliveries to be deferred 
when prices were high and supplies tight--was spelled out in the 
``Business Procedures'' for the SPR program issued by DOE in January 
2002. The Business Procedures spell out how scheduled deliveries of oil 
to the SPR can be deferred. Generally, companies will ask for a 
deferral when the market is tight so they can meet their supply 
commitments to refiners who have an immediate need for the oil. DOE's 
procedures provided that a company could be granted a deferral in 
return for additional barrels of oil to be delivered at the later date. 
DOE calculated the amount of additional oil that would be delivered by 
comparing the market prices at the time of delivery was originally 
scheduled and at the time of the deferred delivery.
  DOE's own documents state that deferrals of oil scheduled to be 
delivered in 2001 provided an additional 3\1/2\ million barrels of oil 
for the SPR at no additional cost to the Government. Deferrals of 
deliveries scheduled for 1999 and 2000 had added another 3\1/2\ million 
barrels. At an average cost of $25 per barrel, these deferrals added a 
total of 7 million barrels of oil to the Reserve, worth about $175 
million, for no cost to the taxpayer. The SPR program projected:

       The potential for savings to the Treasury if we continue to 
     follow this business model until the Reserve is full is 
     additional hundreds of millions of dollars.

  But in April 2002, DOE stopped allowing deferrals of scheduled 
deliveries. Instead, DOE began to buy oil for the SPR without regard to 
the cost of oil or the supply of oil, and refused requests for 
deferrals. DOE has not explained the reason for abandoning its previous 
policy.
  In addition to losing the benefits from deferrals, both in terms of 
oil gained and dollars saved, the abandonment of the previous policy is 
costing taxpayers because DOE has been paying top dollar for the oil 
placed into the SPR. Oil acquired for the SPR at $35 per barrel costs 
the taxpayers $10 more per barrel than oil acquired at $25 per barrel. 
Even more modest savings per barrel add up to large savings over the 
course of the program. In 2002, DOE's SPR program calculated:

       If the SPR can average down the price of oil it injects in 
     the Reserve by $1 per barrel between now and 2005, the U.S. 
     Treasury will be better off by $125 million, a direct 
     benefit.

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

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

       If we look at the SPR from the perspective of daily supply 
     and demand, the SPR fill rates are inconsequential. The fill 
     rate is 100-170,000 barrels per day compared to world 
     production and consumption of 75 million barrels per day. 
     However, when OPEC countries are determined to maintain 
     discipline in their export quotas, the cumulative impact of 
     filling the SPR becomes more significant when compared to 
     U.S. and Atlantic basin inventories. Essentially, if the SPR 
     inventory grows, the OPEC does not accommodate that growth by 
     exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of 
     commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices 
     are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 
     million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially 
     increase prices.

  Oil companies doing business with the SPR program supported DOE's 
business procedures in place prior to the spring of last year. These 
procedures afforded the contractors the flexibility to re-schedule 
deliveries to the SPR in accordance with market conditions. In exchange 
for providing the oil companies with this flexibility, the U.S. 
government was able to obtain additional barrels of oil for the SPR at 
no additional cost to the taxpayer. This enabled the Reserve to be 
filled faster and at less cost than if contractors were not allowed to 
reschedule their deliveries. These procedures were a win-win for 
taxpayers and the SPR.
  And, of course, any increase in the price of oil will soon lead to an 
increase in the price of the various petroleum products, including 
gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, and jet fuel. Hence, the SPR 
program affects price of basic oil products for a wide variety of 
American consumers and businesses.
  The amendment I am offering today would encourage DOE to reinstate 
these ``win-win'' procedures for filling the SPR.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a recent editorial critical of DOE's cost-blind approach to filling the 
SPR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. LEVIN. The editorial, in the Omaha World Herald, dated August 14, 
reads:
       In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the 
     nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in 
     case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing 
     as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making 
     a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 
     million barrels since the start of May. Commercial U.S. oil 
     stocks have been low for months. Filling the reserve just now 
     puts upward pressure on prices. . . . Washington should back 
     off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is 
     costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists 
     during summer vacation driving time.

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

                               Exhibit 1

Proceedings of APEC Energy Security Initiative Workshop on Elements of 
  Energy Security Policy in the Context of Petroleum, Amari Watergate 
            Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, September 14-15, 2001


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

       Jointly Organized by: Department of Industry, Science and 
     Resource (ISR), Australia; The Institute of Energy Economics, 
     Japan (IEEJ), Japan; Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy 
     (MOCIE), Republic of Korea; Ministry of Energy, Mexico; 
     National Energy Policy Office (NEPO), Thailand; and 
     Department of Energy (DOE), United States.
       Supported by: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and 
     Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan


                      strategic petroleum reserve

       APEC Workshop on Energy Security Policy: John Shages.

[[Page S11810]]

      united states policy on responding to oil supply disruptions

       The policy of the United States regarding oil supply 
     disruptions is to rely on market forces to allocate supply, 
     and to ordinarily supplement supply by the early drawdown of 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in large volumes and in 
     coordination with our allies and trading partners.


                critical elements to justify a drawdown

       A Disruption Event.
       Evidence of Supply Stress.
       A Price Spike.


       the key to a successful strategic reserve is cost control

       The benefits come with a drawdown--but the number and 
     extent of futures disruptions is unknown.
       Measuring the degree of damage from a disruption, and the 
     consequent benefits of a petroleum reserve, to an individual 
     economy is an uncertain science.
       Cost is the easiest aspect to control and has the highest 
     probability of making the Reserve cost beneficial.


                          major cost elements

       Capital Costs--Including land, facilities, and logistics 
     systems.
       Maintenance Costs.
       Oil Acquisition Costs.


                             capital costs

       Dependent on location.
       Technology and type of storage facilities.
       Refer to the 1999 APERC Study supported by conceptual 
     designs and cost estimates from PBKBB, Inc.


            lessons learned to control oil acquisition costs

       Let the markets determine your buying pattern.
       Buy in weak markets.
       Delay deliveries during strong markets.
       Use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.

                               Exhibit 2

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

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

       In general, we are strong supporters of keeping the 
     nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve at or near capacity in 
     case of a national emergency. However, there is such a thing 
     as bad timing. We believe the administration has been making 
     a mistake by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 
     million barrels since the start of May.
       Commercial U.S. oil stocks have been low for months. 
     Filling the reserve just now puts upwards pressure on prices. 
     Every motorists sees this at the gasoline pump, where 
     regular-grade gas is hovering around $1.60.
       Oil has again begun to flow from Iraq's vast fields, which 
     will help somewhat--weeks from now. Meanwhile, the strategic 
     reserve is at 84 percent of capacity. This seems to us a 
     comfortable level.
       Washington should back off until oil prices fall somewhat. 
     Doing otherwise is costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is 
     punishing motorists during summer vacation driving time.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join the ranking member 
of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Levin, 
in offering an amendment that would require the U.S. Department of 
Energy to develop and maintain cost-effective procedures to fill the 
nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment simply requires the 
Department of Energy to publish procedures for obtaining oil for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a manner that maximizes supplies, 
minimizes costs, and is consistent with national security. The 
amendment would give the Department of Energy 180 days to publish these 
procedures and would allow an opportunity for public comment prior to 
final publication.
  Two years ago, Senator Carl Levin, who at the time was chairman of 
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, initiated an 
investigation into gas prices in the United States. Part-way through 
this effort he expanded the investigation to include analysis of 
Department of Energy policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. Last year, I joined Senator Levin in requesting information 
from the Department of Energy on the impacts of filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve on crude oil prices.
  In March of this year, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
released a report which described the findings of the investigation. 
Among other things, the Committee found that inconsistent Department of 
Energy policies had led to filling the reserve during tight market 
conditions. The Committee found that this action had increased oil 
prices, hurt U.S. consumers, and increased the cost to taxpayers.
  The Department of Energy should adopt procedures to ensure that oil 
purchases for the SPR minimize the economic impact on consumers. The 
Department of Energy needs to take full advantage of techniques such as 
deferred payments, use of the futures market, and careful cost-benefit 
analysis in order to lessen the impact of oil purchases on consumers. 
Although the Department has used all of these policies on occasion, it 
should do so consistently.
  The United States has the ability to partially mitigate dramatic 
spikes in gas prices, if we properly use and maintain our domestic 
reserve. In fact, it is our duty to do so, to ease the economic impact 
that drastically rising gas prices have on Americans who need to fill 
their tanks in order to do their jobs, buy their groceries, and drive 
their kids to school.
  Our amendment would ensure that price and market impact are top 
considerations in managing this vital domestic emergency oil supply. It 
would give the Department of Energy an opportunity to focus increased 
attention on its policies and procedures for filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, with particular regard to the effect of its policies 
on gas prices and oil markets. I ask my colleagues to join Senator 
Levin and me in supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1750) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk, as I do quite 
frequently, about the number of unrequested, unauthorized, and 
locality-specific earmarks contained in this bill. Fortunately, this 
year's Interior appropriations bill does not contain as many pork 
projects as the bill the Senate passed last year. This year's bill has 
over $403 million in porkbarrel projects. Last year's had $429 million, 
so I guess there is a $26 million improvement. I guess I should be 
grateful for this apparent savings, but I do not see this as evidence 
of tremendous fiscal restraint.
  Citizens Against Government Waste, a nationally recognized, well-
respected, nonpartisan government watchdog organization found that in 
fiscal year 2003, the Appropriations Committee stuck 9,362 projects 
into the 13 annual appropriations bills, an increase of over 12 percent 
from the previous year's total of 8,341. A further note: in the last 2 
years the total number of projects has increased by some 48 percent.
  I have compiled a 21-page list of 332 objectionable provisions 
contained within this bill, totaling $423 million. I will post the full 
list on my official Senate Web site.
  Let me just highlight some of the more egregious projects in this 
bill: An earmark for $4 million for the construction, renovation, and 
furnishing and demolition or removal of buildings at National Energy 
Technology Laboratory facilities in Morgantown, WV, and Pittsburg, PA; 
$15 million for alcohol control enforcement, prevention, treatment, 
sobriety and wellness, and education in Alaska, distributed in lump sum 
payments to various entities; one of our old favorites, $1 million 
above the request to continue work at the National Center for 
Ecologically-Based Noxious Weed Management at Montana State 
University--they got an extra $1 million; $500,000 for continued 
funding of the Idaho Sage Grouse Management Plan through the Idaho 
Office of Species Conservation; $2 million above the budget request of 
the President for Atlantic salmon recovery activities; $900,000 above 
the budget request for Eider Duck recovery work by the Alaska SeaLife 
Center; $1.2 million above the budget request for the Wolf Recovery 
Program in the State of

[[Page S11811]]

Idaho; $1.4 million for the Washington State Regional Salmon 
Enhancement; $200,000 for bald eagle restoration work performed in 
cooperation with the Vermont National Heritage Partners Program; 
$500,000 for the Native Roadside Vegetation Center at the University of 
Northern Idaho; $700,000 for invasive species control in Hawaii; 
$500,000 for the Delaware Bay Oyster Revitalization Project in the 
States of Delaware and New Jersey; $500,000 for salmon restoration work 
in Puget Sound in cooperation with the Seattle Art Museum--the Seattle 
Art Museum is going to work in cooperation with Puget Sound for salmon 
restoration--$750,000 for ferret reintroduction in the Rosebud Sioux 
tribal lands; $1.5 million for the Bitter Lake, NM, Visitors Center--
that is sweet--$1 million for Kenai, AK, for cabins, trails, and 
campgrounds; $3 million for the Kodiak, AK, Visitors Center--I can tell 
you that Alaska is doing very well by doing good--$2.1 million for the 
Ohio River Islands, WV, Visitors Center and miscellaneous improvements; 
$525,000 for the Okefenokee Concession Facility in Georgia; $300,000 
for the Garrison Dam, ND, fishpond improvements; $850,000 for the 
Savannah, GA, Visitors Center--we are big on visitors centers in this 
particular bill--$2 million for the World Birding Center in Texas; $3 
million for the Abraham Lincoln Library in Illinois; $500,000 to design 
a visitors center on Assateague Island in Maryland; $1.1 million to 
rehabilitate off-road vehicle trails in Big Cypress National Park in 
Florida; $1.7 million to rehabilitate General Grant's tomb in New 
York--I wonder if we should ascertain whether General Grant is actually 
there before we rehabilitate his tomb--$3 million for a visitors center 
in the Grand Teton National Park; $7.4 million for rehabilitation of 
the Horace Albright Training Center in Arizona. I am told that the 
Horace Albright Training Center in Arizona is a place near the bottom 
of the Grand Canyon where park personnel are trained.

  The committee report directs 26 separate unrequested land 
acquisitions under the Fish and Wildlife Service totaling nearly $35 
million.
  It is the process that I have a problem with. The committee 
effectively usurps the power of the authorizing committee and acts as 
one all-powerful funding machine. Projects are often funded with little 
or no background study and are approved simply after being requested by 
a fellow Member.
  As all my colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office recently 
projected a potentially debilitating $480 billion deficit for 2004 and 
the President has asked for additional appropriations of $87 billion 
for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everybody is 
asking: Where is the money coming from? After years of unchecked and 
questionable spending, we are in the unfortunate position of facing 
critical budget constraints that will hamper our ability to fully fund 
necessary programs. Instead, we are cutting deep into the taxpayers' 
pockets once again by expecting them to shell out more than $403 
million in porkbarrel spending included in this bill.
  I think at some point the President of the United States is going to 
have to veto one of these bills and demand that this unnecessary, 
unwarranted, unauthorized, and unrequested spending be removed because 
we really are talking about real money.
  I understand we are going to have a voice vote on final passage of 
this bill. I would be recorded as voting no if there were a recorded 
vote.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1739

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order, and I 
believe my amendment is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to speak to this 
amendment a couple of times, so I will not belabor it. I know we are 
getting close to the end of the debate.
  I compliment the distinguished manager of the bill and ranking member 
for a job well done on the bill.
  This amendment recognizes two things. It recognizes, first, when it 
comes to trust responsibility and the very vexing problems we have had 
in carrying out trust responsibility with all Indian tribes, that we 
are a long way from any implementation of that responsibility today. 
What efforts have been made in trying to establish some mechanism for 
carrying out those responsibilities in a fair and meaningful way are 
yet to be found. In fact, if anything, we are mired more than we have 
been in a long time.
  There is a need to create a better partnership with all tribal 
governments, and, as a result of that need for greater partnership, a 
recognition that until we have meaningful trust responsibility in 
policy and in law, to put an infrastructure in place which is 
supposedly designed to implement a policy that doesn't exist is 
premature. In fact, it sends all the wrong messages about what the 
intention of the BIA, the Congress, or this administration is with 
regard to that responsibility in the first place.
  The National Congress of American Indians has written to Congress 
asking Congress not to fund the implementation of the policy today 
because it is premature. Virtually every national Indian organization 
has pleaded with the Congress to recognize the importance of tribal 
sovereignty and tribal partnership with their government and has asked 
us not to implement the policy.
  That is the first point I would make with this amendment. The second 
point is equally as important.
  We have, as I said this morning, an extraordinary deficiency in 
health care. We are underfunded by about $2.9 billion in health care 
funding on reservations today, with regard to IHS clinical services 
alone. As a result of that underfunding, the per capita commitment to 
Indian health care today is about $1,900. That is half of what our per 
capita commitment is today for Federal prisoners' health care. In other 
words, an Indian child on a reservation gets half the commitment 
through the Federal Government that a prisoner does regardless of that 
prisoner's crime in the Federal system today.
  What I simply am proposing with this amendment is that we take part 
of the money allocated for the implementation of this trust 
responsibility effort that is now underway in the BIA and shift it over 
to where it can do the most good; that is, in health care. We need 
every dollar we can get in health care, and $79 million--which is what 
this amendment provides--will go at least a little ways.
  Since we weren't able to pass the amendment offering $292 million for 
IHS clinical services, $79 million transferred to Indian health care 
from the trust fund budget that is within the BIA would at least send 
the right message to NCAI and to all of the Native American 
organizations that we listen, that we understand, and that this is 
important to us as well.
  Some will argue that to do so would actually prevent us from cutting 
checks to allottees. If this bill were enacted today, the Office of 
Special Trustee would receive $143 million, the same as last year. So 
we would have the same amount of money for allottees through the Office 
of Special Trustee that we had in the last fiscal year. The system that 
cuts the checks--the Trust Fund Accounting System--would not be 
affected. That costs approximately $14 million. According to the 
President's budget request, my amendment would still allow $32 million 
in the Operation and Support Account. In the Operation and Support 
Account we strike $20 million. We leave $32 million.
  There is a $6 million reduction in the trust accountability account. 
We leave $51 million. We take $15 million from field operations and 
still leave $24 million. We take $38 million from the historical 
accounting fund and we still leave $27 million. The total amount 
available for the Office of Special Trustee under this amendment is 
$143 million.
  This is our last opportunity on this bill to do something worthwhile, 
to recognize we have failed to meet our obligations in addressing the 
crisis we have in health care on reservations in the country today and 
to recognize, as well, the Office of the Special Trustee, as we 
consider our challenges as well as our responsibilities in carrying out 
the intent and the spirit of the treaty obligations we have not met and 
that will not be met under this bill.
  Let's use this money where it can do the most good. Let's shift it 
out of the Office of Special Trustee and into health care. I hope my 
colleagues on

[[Page S11812]]

both sides of the aisle could support this amendment.
  Mr. President, the United States of America has been struggling to 
strike the correct Indian policy for literally 200 years. Since the 
days of the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark exploration, we 
have attempted to find a policy that was both fair to Native people and 
yet, at the same time, allowed for the expansion and progress of the 
United States. That search continues today.
  From the treaties of the mid-1800s, to the Dawes Act of 1887, which 
sought to break up tribal land, to the Indian Reorganization Act of 
1934, which sought to undo the damage of the Dawes Act, the United 
States has vacillated on Indian policy. From a policy of termination to 
the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, we 
have struggled. In more recent times, through several administrations 
of both parties, the United States has been committed to honoring its 
treaty obligations and interacting with Indian tribes on a government-
to-government basis.
  Through a government-to-government policy, our goal is to respect the 
integrity of tribal governments and allow them to function with greater 
autonomy. Tribal governments are administering more and more programs 
and are being looked to for the provision of local services.
  President Bush, discussing his administration's policy on Indian 
affairs had this to say:

       To enhance our efforts to help Indian nations be self-
     governing, self-supporting, and self-reliant, my 
     Administration will continue to honor tribal sovereignty by 
     working on a government-to-government basis with American 
     Indians and Alaska Natives. We will honor the rights of 
     Indian tribes and work to protect and enhance tribal 
     resources.

  With that background in mind, the question before the Senate is 
whether or not we should appropriate money to reorganize the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs when the reorganization plan put forward by the 
Department of Interior is opposed by Indian tribes all across the 
country. I think that the answer is clearly ``no.''
  What does the phrase ``government-to-government'' mean if we are 
going to ignore the opinion of tribal leaders on a question of unique 
importance to Indian people? What does it say if we pay no heed to 
tribal leaders on how to organize the Bureau of Indian Affairs? I ask 
my colleagues who have an Indian reservation in their State, how many 
of you have said you are committed to government-to-government 
relations between the United States and Indian tribes?
  The tribal Chairs in South Dakota are against the proposed BIA 
reorganization plan. The senior Chairman in South Dakota, Chairman Mike 
Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been a national leader on 
this subject. The National Congress of American Indians has written to 
Congress asking us not to fund the reorganization. If a government-to-
government policy means anything, then Congress should respect these 
tribal leaders, not fund the reorganization, and transfer the proposed 
funding to higher priorities, health care first and foremost.
  I am therefore proposing that we transfer $79 million from accounts 
that would fund a reorganization of the Department of Interior, Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, to increase funding for Indian health programs.
  The health care statistics on the reservations of South Dakota, and 
throughout the country, are closer to the statistics of the developing 
Third World than they are to the national statistics for the United 
States. Infant mortality and diabetes rates on the reservations far 
exceed that of the rest of the Nation; every health barometer calls out 
for prompt intervention and assistance.
  There is little disagreement that the Department's stewardship of 
Indian trust funds has been a colossal and longstanding failure. For 
over 100 years, the Department of Interior has served as the trustee 
for the proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights 
on Indian land. Many billions of dollars are at stake. Money that is 
desperately needed to address basic human needs cannot be accounted for 
and distributed.
  But rather than get directly at the underlying problem, the 
Department continues to focus on reorganization in order to demonstrate 
to the tribes, Congress, and the Court that something is happening and 
that progress is being made. The money in the trust fund belongs to the 
tribes and its enrolled members.
  Congress should not appropriate one more dollar for reorganization of 
the BIA until the tribes tell us they support the reorganization plan 
and, most importantly, that the reorganization plan will adequately 
address the mismanagement of the trust fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have great admiration and respect for 
the

[[Page S11813]]

Senator from Montana. I ask him, if it is the right thing to do, why 
did we exempt the tribes from Montana from this very provision, this 
very requirement? Section 134 of the bill exempts certain tribes. All 
of those tribes in Montana are exempt.
  We are simply saying, if the exemption is good enough for Montana, it 
ought to be good enough for the rest of the country, as well. I start 
with that. It cannot be too good or we would include Montana. But we do 
not. That is an issue that ought to be clarified.
  I also simply say, if it is true these allottees are not going to 
receive income as a result of the passage of this amendment, how is it 
possible that virtually every tribal leader in the country, virtually 
every Indian organization in the country, has expressed support for the 
amendment? Would they not be concerned for the allottees? Would they 
not be concerned about the economic impact this would have? The fact 
is, they support the amendment. The fact is, they know we have money in 
this bill with this amendment that allows at least some of these 
responsibilities to be carried forward.
  Why would we ever implement a bureaucratic response to a policy that 
is yet to be written, that is yet to be confirmed and acknowledged and 
authorized by the courts? Why would we put the organization in place 
before we know what the responsibilities are? That is what we ask with 
this amendment.
  We have debated it now on several occasions. I am not going to 
convince the Senator from Montana, even though he looks out for his 
State, and I don't blame him for doing so. I want the same opportunity 
to look out for the rest of the country and my State, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 362 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Dodd
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1739), as further modified, was rejected.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me, too, thank my colleague, Senator 
Burns. This is a very significant piece of legislation. We have had 
excellent cooperation. I also thank the staff, if I might: Peter 
Kiefhaber, Brooke Livingston, and, of course, the majority staff: Bruce 
Evans, Ginny James, Steve Fonnesbeck, and also Ryan Thomas.
  The Interior bill has, on occasion, been a bill that has taken a long 
time to move through the floor in some years. Other years, it has moved 
rather quickly. I think we have had a good discussion on some very 
important issues. I appreciate the work of my colleague from Montana. I 
believe we have a couple of managers' packages, and then I think we 
will have an opportunity to voice vote final. There is one additional 
amendment as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. First of all, I congratulate the managers. The bill has 
been handled perfectly. It allows us to continue on in the 
appropriations process in an orderly manner. It allows adequate and 
good time for debate and discussion. I congratulate them.
  As the managers just said, there are a couple of packages being 
worked on now. Then we will have final passage by voice vote. Tonight 
there will be no more rollcall votes. The exact times will be announced 
later tonight, but we plan on going to DC appropriations at 10:30 
tomorrow morning. The specific times in terms of morning business and 
all will be announced later. I congratulate the managers and all our 
colleagues on making tremendous progress in the overall appropriations 
process. I appreciate everybody's cooperation and patience on these 
very important bills.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
in package No. 1 be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are considered en bloc and are agreed to en bloc.

[[Page S11814]]

  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1757

(Purpose: To provide funds for trail construction on the Wasatch-Cache 
                            National Forest)

       On page 70, line 18, immediately following the number 
     ``205'' insert the following:
       ``, of which $500,000 may be for improvements at Fernwood 
     Park on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest''


                           amendment no. 1758

 (Purpose: To provide funds to facilitate a land exchange between the 
             State of Montana and the Lolo National Forest)

       On page 64, line 21, immediately following number 
     ``6a(i))'' insert the following:
       ``, of which $200,000 may be for necessary expenses related 
     to a land exchange between the State of Montana and the Lolo 
     National Forest''


                    amendment no. 1752, as modified

       On page 20, line 16, after ``$1,636,299,000'' insert the 
     following: ``, of which, in accordance with the cooperative 
     agreement entered into between the National Park Service and 
     the Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust and numbered 
     1443CA125002001, $600,000 may be available for activities of 
     the National Park Service at the Oklahoma City National 
     Memorial and $1,600,000 may be available to the Oklahoma City 
     National Memorial Trust''.


                           amendment no. 1759

(Purpose: To set aside funds for the Wildlife Enhancement and Economic 
            Development Program in Starkville, Mississippi)

       On page 11, line 24, after ``2005'' insert the following: 
     ``, of which $1,000,000 may be available for the Wildlife 
     Enhancement and Economic Development Program in Starkville, 
     Mississippi''.


                           amendment no. 1760

 (Purpose: To improve seismic monitoring and hazard assessment in the 
               Jackson Hole-Yellowstone area of Wyoming)

       On page 27, line 17, immediately following ``industries;'' 
     insert:
       and of which $250,000 may be available to improve seismic 
     monitoring and hazard assessment in the Jackson Hole-
     Yellowstone area of Wyoming.


                           amendment no. 1761

        (Purpose: To allow fiscal year 2004 funds for futuregen)

       On page 82, line 7, insert before the period ``; Provided 
     Further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     within fiscal year 2004 up to $9,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading for obligation in prior years, 
     of funds not obligated or committed to existing Clean Coal 
     Technology projects, and funds committed or obligated to a 
     project that is or may be terminated, may be used for the 
     development of technologies and research facilities that 
     support the production of electricity and hydrogen from coal 
     including sequestration of associated carbon dioxide; 
     provided that, the Secretary may enter into a lease or other 
     agreement, not subject to the conditions or requirements 
     established for Clean Coal Technology projects under any 
     prior law, for a cost-shared public-private partnership with 
     a non-Federal entity representing the coal industry and coal-
     fueled utilities; and provided further, that the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the entity provides opportunities for 
     participation by technology vendors, States, universities, 
     and other stakeholders''.


                           amendment no. 1762

     (Purpose: To provide funding for DES applications integration)

       On page 85, on line 4 beginning after ``expended'' insert 
     ``, of which $1,500,000 is for DES applications 
     integration''.


                    amendment no. 1728, as modified

       On page 21, line 21, after ``$60,154,000'' insert the 
     following: ``, of which $175,000 may be available for 
     activities to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase at the Jean 
     Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of 
     Louisiana''.


                           amendment no. 1763

       On page 36, line 4, insert before the period ``: Provided 
     further, That $48,115,000 shall be operating grants for 
     Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, and $34,710,000 shall 
     be for Information Resources Technology''


                           amendment no. 1726

  (Purpose: To provide for a payment of $11,750 to the Harriet Tubman 
                       Home in Auburn, New York)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec.   (a) Payment to the Harriet Tubman Home, Auburn, New 
     York, Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior may, 
     using amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this title, make a payment to the Harriet Tubman Home in 
     Auburn, New York, in the amount of $11,750.
       (2) The amount specified in paragraph (1) is the amount of 
     widow's pension that Harriet Tubman should have received from 
     January 1899 to March 1913 under various laws authorizing 
     pension for the death of her husband, Nelson Davis, a 
     deceased veteran of the Civil War, but did not receive, 
     adjusted for inflation since March 1913.
       (b) Use of Amounts.--The Harriet Tubman Home shall use 
     amounts paid under subsection (a) for the purposes of--
       (1) preserving and maintaining the Harriet Tubman Home; and
       (2) honoring the memory of Harriet Tubman.


                           amendment no. 1764

     (Purpose: To include electric thermal storage technology as a 
   weatherization material under the Energy Conservation in Existing 
                         Buildings Act of 1976)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. ELECTRIC THERMAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 412(9) of the Energy Conservation in Existing 
     Buildings Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6862(9)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
       ``(J) electric thermal storage technology; and''.


                           amendment no. 1765

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the Mesa Verde Cultural Center in the 
                   State of Colorado, with an offset)

       On page 23, beginning on line 12, strike ``$341,531,000'' 
     and all that follows through line 17 and insert 
     ``$342,131,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $300,000 for the L.Q.C. Lamar House National Historic 
     Landmark and $375,000 for the Sun Watch National Historic 
     Landmark shall be derived from the Historic Preservation Fund 
     pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 470a and of which $600,000 shall be 
     available for the planning and design of the Mesa Verde 
     Cultural Center in the State of Colorado: Provided, That none 
     of the funds''.

       On page 71, beginning on line 9, strike ``$77,040,000'' and 
     all that follows through line 11 and insert ``$76,440,000, to 
     be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to 
     remain available until expended, of which $5,400,000 shall be 
     available for the Beaver Brook Watershed in the State of 
     Colorado: Provided, That''.


                           amendment no. 1766

(Purpose: To provide funding for the construction of a statue of Harry 
           S Truman in Kansas City, Missouri, with an offset)

       On page, 23, line 17, insert before the ``:'' the 
     following: ``, and of which $50,000 shall be available for 
     the construction of a statue of Harry S Truman in Union 
     Station in Kansas City, Missouri, and of which $4,289,000 
     shall be available for the construction of a security fence 
     for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in the State of 
     Missouri''.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we should momentarily come to the floor 
with the final managers' package and wrap up this bill and I think we 
will have a voice vote at the end. I did want to make a couple of 
comments while we were waiting for the final pieces of this 
appropriations bill.
  Earlier today I visited just a bit about the issue of reconstruction 
in the country of Iraq. Today we were visited in our Democratic caucus 
by Ambassador Bremer who just returned from Iraq. He appeared before 
the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday, before our caucus today. 
He talked about the request of $87 billion, both for military 
appropriations for our defense establishment--that is appropriations of 
about $60 billion necessary for the efforts we are making in the 
country of Iraq--and, in addition to that, there is about slightly more 
than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq.
  I want to make the point that first I think every dollar requested 
for the military could, should, and I believe will be appropriated 
quickly to support the efforts of our troops. This Congress has to 
understand when we ask our sons and daughters to go to war and to 
commit themselves for the mission this country asks of them, we must 
support them with appropriations.
  The second issue, the reconstruction in Iraq that is necessary, is a 
different and an interesting problem. Should the American taxpayer pay 
for the reconstruction of Iraq? First of all, we did not target Iraq 
infrastructure. Shock and Awe was a campaign that began with smart 
bombs and smart weapons. It did not target their electric grid. It did 
not target their dams. It did not target their roads. It did not target 
the infrastructure of Iraq. The destruction of the infrastructure of 
Iraq has come from a guerrilla insurgent movement inside Iraq, but it 
has not come from American military force. So the question is, who 
should provide the $20-plus billion for reconstruction of Iraq?

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

[[Page S11815]]

on sandy soil that contains the second largest reserves of oil in the 
world, the second largest reserves in the world next to Saudi Arabia. 
It is estimated that by next July the Iraqi oil wells will be producing 
around 3 million barrels per day. It is also estimated at that level 
the net export value of Iraqi oil will be about $16 billion a year. So 
over the next 10 years the Iraqi oil revenues should produce about $160 
billion.
  In addition to that, I asked Ambassador Bremer what do you intend to 
do with respect to the Iraqi oil revenue and what do you intend to do 
with respect to debts that are owed to other countries from the country 
of Iraq? The reason I ask that question is, I said: Why don't you use 
Iraqi oil to reconstruct Iraq? It seems to me logical you would do 
that.
  He said, We can't do that because Iraq owes a great deal of money. It 
has great debt.
  I said, Who holds the debt?
  Yesterday during the Appropriations Committee hearing, he said 
Russia--Iraq owes Russia money, it owes France money, and Germany 
money.
  Since yesterday I have gotten more information about that. It turns 
out the largest holders of Iraq debt are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It is 
very interesting to me: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the largest holders of 
debt, according to published reports, from the Iraqi government.
  So the Iraqi government owes Kuwait and the Saudis perhaps $50 
billion. Who is the Iraqi government? Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein 
obligated the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, to pay certain moneys 
to other countries for the debts incurred. But Saddam Hussein does not 
exist; his government is gone. So who should repay that debt? 
Ambassador Bremer says the American taxpayer should repay that debt. I 
don't think so. I think what ought to happen is you ought to 
collateralize or securitize the next 10 years of Iraqi oil. You can 
easily provide the resources for the reconstruction in Iraq from the 
oil that will be pumped from the sands of Iraq in the next 10 years. 
Iraqi oil ought to be used to pay for the reconstruction in the country 
of Iraq.
  With respect to the debt Ambassador Bremer says under international 
obligations is owed by the country of Iraq to other countries, it seems 
to me there is a term called debt forgiveness. I don't know how you say 
to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis: You were owed money by Iraq. Go find 
Saddam Hussein and collect it. I don't know quite how you say that, but 
there must be a way of saying that. Go find Saddam Hussein and try to 
collect that debt. That is who obligated that debt on behalf of the 
Iraqi people.
  It seems to me, the first thing we ought to do is say this debt that 
overhangs the people of Iraq ought to be negotiated down, first and 
foremost. Second, it seems to me we ought to say we will provide all 
the money that is requested, first for the military side of the request 
for the appropriations the President asked for, and second, we will 
provide the money, because we should, with respect to reconstruction. 
But it will not be American taxpayers' money. We will provide the 
mechanism by which we monetize or rather collateralize or securitize 
the oil revenues that we pump from under the sands of Iraq over the 
next 10 years.
  Ambassador Bremer says that will be up to 3 million barrels per day 
by next July. At 3 million barrels per day you produce about $20 
billion a year, about $4 billion of which is going to be needed for 
Iraqi oil needs, the rest of which is available for export. That is $16 
billion of export earnings. That is the way you reinvest in Iraq. 
Invest in Iraq infrastructure with oil revenue from Iraq.
  Ambassador Bremer said one other thing that was interesting to me. He 
said, by the way, we have just put together a tax structure in Iraq. I 
might point out that a nonoil state, that is a nation that doesn't have 
oil reserves, and that's a good many nations around the world, they put 
together a revenue structure, a tax system by which they raise the 
money to build the schools, to build the roads, to maintain the 
electric grid. They put together a tax system to do that.
  They have just put together a new tax system in the country of Iraq 
and Ambassador Bremer pointed out yesterday we have a new tax system. 
Apparently that is designed to produce the revenue to run the 
Government of Iraq. He said the top income tax rate is 15 percent.
  I am thinking to myself, so those at the highest income levels in 
Iraq--and there are some very high income-earners in Iraq--will pay a 
15 percent tax and then American taxpayers at the highest level will 
pay a 39 percent tax and we should pay a 39 percent tax so we can send 
money to the Government of Iraq so the Government of Iraq can send 
money to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis to satisfy past debt 
obligations while the Iraqi citizens at the top of the income level are 
paying 15 percent income tax. I don't think so. That is not a construct 
that makes much sense to me.

  I am not saying by all of this that we don't have obligations--we 
do--or that we don't have a priority interest in dealing with the 
military and the nonmilitary needs in Iraq. We do. The question is not 
whether; it is how.
  My hope is we will bifurcate this request for appropriations of $87 
million, and take the military side first and pass that. I support all 
of that. We ought to move that through this Congress quickly.
  Second, we ought to work with Ambassador Bremer and others and 
describe to those folks how we want to reconstruct Iraq to rebuild the 
infrastructure.
  Let me describe what they are talking about. It is restoring 
marshland, building seven communities with 3,500 new homes, 
rehabilitating 1,000 schools, developing a telecommunications system. 
Need I go on?
  Is the reconstruction of Iraq necessary in which to build a market 
system and a healthy economy? Perhaps. Should it be done? Sure. With 
whose money? Who pays the bill?
  In this case, it makes no sense to me for us to say the American 
taxpayer should foot that bill for reconstruction. It makes eminent 
good sense, in my judgment, for us to say we will help, as we already 
have, to develop the central banking system of Iraq, develop the 
economy that is now emerging in Iraq, and through that process 
securitize future Iraqi oil revenues. As I see it, that is $320 billion 
in revenues over the next 20 years. It just seems to me that $320 
billion in 20 years provides the collateral to easily provide the 
upfront funds--not a grant from the American taxpayer, but a loan in 
the form of a security document securitizing or collateralizing future 
oil production in Iraq.
  We will have a lot of discussion about this. I suspect some will say 
if you do not believe in every single sentence or every punctuation 
mark in the President's request that somehow you are not thinking 
squarely. I really believe the piece we ought to describe in some great 
detail here and the piece we ought to debate is the issue of who should 
pay for the reconstruction of Iraq--not the issue of security. We need 
to do that. Not the issue of military needs; we need to do that, and 
now. But we need to have a good, strong debate here in this Congress 
about how to provide the funds for the reconstruction that is being 
proposed in Iraq. I for one come down on the side of saying let us have 
Iraqi oil produce the revenues to invest in Iraq. That is what makes 
good sense to me.
  For the record, let me describe the circumstances with Iraqi debt. 
The reason I do this is because Ambassador Bremer says that is why they 
propose the American taxpayer pay the money for Iraqi reconstruction 
rather than have Iraqi oil do it. The World Bank Debtor Reporting 
System is where you find the evidence of which countries have how much 
debt. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was one of the few countries that did not 
report its debt statistics to the World Bank Debtor Reporting System. 
So you have to rely on other pieces of information.
  The best we can determine, the biggest lenders to Saddam Hussein were 
France, Germany, Gulf states, Japan, Kuwait, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. 
Of those, the largest was Saudi Arabia, then Kuwait, and Russia a close 
third. All the other Gulf states together were substantial--close to 
$30 billion, France and Germany in the $6 billion range.

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

[[Page S11816]]

how do you tell countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and how do 
you tell them quickly, by the way, that the debt you have, that paper 
you hold, is the debt you incurred in negotiations with Saddam Hussein. 
We are sorry. He doesn't live here anymore. You might want to put that 
piece of paper somewhere where you have other things to collect which 
have very little worth, then start over understanding that Iraqi oil 
can be used to reconstruct the urgent needs that exist in the country 
of Iraq.
  I will have more to say about this at some future point. Because 
Ambassador Bremer is here, I wanted to make that point. Let me also say 
that I said to Ambassador Bremer we pray for his safety. He has a very 
difficult job and dangerous job, as do the men and women who wear our 
country's uniform and who are in Iraq today and stationed in other 
parts of the world as well. We pray for their safety and thank them for 
their services to our country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1768

  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1768.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide funds to repay accounts from which funds were 
                   borrowed for wildfire suppression)

       Immediately following Title III of the bill insert the 
     following new Title:

           ``TITLE IV--WILDLAND FIRE EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

                        WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

       For necessary expenses to repay advances from other 
     appropriations transferred in fiscal year 2003 for emergency 
     rehabilitation and wildfire suppression activities of the 
     Department of the Interior, $75,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004: Providing 
     further, That the $75,000,000, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of $75,000,000 as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2004, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE

                        WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

       For necessary expenses to repay advances from other 
     appropriations transferred in fiscal year 2003 for wildfire 
     suppression and emergency rehabilitation activities of the 
     Forest Service, $325,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     502 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for $325,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of $325,000,000 as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.''

  Mr. BURNS. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support this amendment. We have reviewed 
it. I am a cosponsor. I asked Senator Burns to include me as a 
cosponsor.
  This really needs to be done. In fact, we need to do more than this. 
This is what we can do at this moment and we will continue to work on 
this in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1768) was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might, while we are waiting, on this 
issue of fire and fire suppression, I know Senator Burns has spoken on 
this floor at some length, and we have had a discussion in the 
committee. We have to really stop this process of underfunding these 
accounts at the start of the year. It is not a great surprise that we 
are going to have forest fires. I come from a State that doesn't have a 
lot of trees. But my colleague, Senator Burns, comes from a State that 
is full of trees.
  In a good many States in this country, we have seen the devastation 
by massive forest fires. They cause a substantial amount of damage. The 
amount of money that is required to deal with the issue of forest 
firefighting and forest fire suppression is a very substantial amount 
of money. We know at the start of the year and in recent years that the 
money has not been requested which is going to be necessary. Then we 
come later on in the year acting wide-eyed and surprised--not my 
colleague from Montana. He never acts wide-eyed and surprised. But 
there are some who walk around here acting like they have just been hit 
with this huge surprise. It is not a surprise to us.
  At the start of the year we need to ask OMB to request the money that 
is necessary, and we need the Congress to appropriate the money 
necessary so we are not in this bind every single year.
  The amendment we have just agreed to, the Burns amendment, is an 
amendment that moves us in the direction of restoring the funding that 
has been taken from other accounts. But it doesn't provide all the 
money necessary for that. We have much more to do in conference.
  Senator Burns has done a remarkably good job in trying to fight with 
those with whom you have to fight to get the resources. We will 
continue this fight in conference.
  Mr. BURNS. 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

  Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk the managers' 
amendments to this bill and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments will be considered en bloc.
  Mr. DORGAN. The amendments have been cleared on this side of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.

[[Page S11817]]

  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment no. 1769

 (Purpose: To cancel certain unobligated balances in the Department of 
                the Interior's foreign currency account)

       On page 44, insert the following after line 23:
       ``Of the unobligated balances in the Special Foreign 
     Currency account, $1,400,000 are hereby canceled.''


                           amendment no. 1770

  (Purpose: To provide authority for the Forest Service to reimburse 
            cooperators who assist with emergency response)

       On page 66, line 20, immediately following the ``:'' insert 
     the following:
       ``Provided further, That such funds may be available to 
     reimburse state and other cooperating entities for services 
     provided in response to wildfire and other emergencies or 
     disasters:''


                           amendment no. 1771

 (Purpose: To provide authority for the Forest Service to sell certain 
        excess facilities on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest)

       On page 81 immediately following line 16, insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize the sale of 
     excess buildings, facilities, and other properties owned by 
     the Forest Service and located on the Wasatch-Cache National 
     Forest, the revenues of which may be retained by the Forest 
     Service and available to the Secretary without further 
     appropriation and until expended for acquisition and 
     construction of administrative sites on the Wasatch-Cache 
     National Forest.''


                           amendment no. 1772

  (Purpose: To facilitate rehabilitation efforts on the Kootenai and 
                       Flathead National Forests)

       Immediately following Title III of the bill insert the 
     following new Title:

 ``Title IV--The Flathead and Kootenai National Forest Rehabilitation 
                                  Act

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This act may be cited as the ``Flathead and Kootenai 
     National Forest Rehabilitation Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) The Robert and Wedge Fire of 2003 caused extensive 
     resource damage to the Flathead National Forest;
       (2) The fires of 2000 caused extensive resource damage on 
     the Kootenai National Forest and implementation of 
     rehabilitation and recovery projects developed by the agency 
     for the Forest is critical;
       (3) The environmental planning and analysis to restore 
     areas affected by the Robert and Wedge Fire will be completed 
     through a collaborative community process;
       (4) The rehabilitation of burned areas needs to be 
     completed in a timely manner in order to reduce the long-term 
     environmental impacts; and
       (5) Wildlife and watershed resource values will be 
     maintained in areas affected by the Robert and Wedge Fire 
     while exempting the rehabilitation effort from certain 
     applications of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
     and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
       (b) The purpose of this Act is to accomplish in a 
     collaborative environment, the planning and rehabilitation of 
     the Robert and Wedge Fire and to ensure timely implementation 
     of recovery and rehabilitation projects on the Kootenai 
     National Forest.

     SEC. 3. REHABILITATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') may conduct projects that 
     the Secretary determines are necessary to rehabilitate and 
     restore, and may conduct salvage harvests on, National Forest 
     System lands in the North Fork drainage on the Flathead 
     National Forest, as generally depicted on a map entitled 
     ``North Fork Drainage'' which shall be on file and available 
     for public inspection in the Office of Chief Forest Service, 
     Washington, D.C.
       (b) Procedure.--
       (1) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by this Act, 
     the Secretary shall conduct projects under this Act in 
     accordance with--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.); and
       (B) other applicable laws.
       (2) Environmental assessment or impact statement.--If an 
     environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement 
     (pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) is required for a project 
     under this Act, the Secretary shall not be required to study, 
     develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency 
     action in the environmental assessment or the environmental 
     impact statement.
       (3) Public collaboration.--To encourage meaningful 
     participation during preparation of a project under this Act, 
     the Secretary shall facilitate collaboration among the State 
     of Montana, local governments, and Indian tribes, and 
     participation of interested persons, during the preparation 
     of each project in a manner consistent with the 
     Implementation Plan for the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy of 
     a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildlife Fire Risks to 
     Communities and the Environment, dated May 2002, which was 
     developed pursuant to the conference report for the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (House Report 106-646).
       (4) Compliance with clean water act.--Consistent with the 
     Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Montana Code 75-
     5-703(10)(b), the Secretary is not prohibited from 
     implementing projects under this Act due to the lack of a 
     Total Maximum Daily Load as provided for under section 303(d) 
     of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)), except that the 
     Secretary shall comply with any best management practices 
     required by the State of Montana.
       (5) Endangered species act consultation.--If a consultation 
     is required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1536) for a project under this Act, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall expedite and give precedence to such 
     consultation over any similar requests for consultation by 
     the Secretary.
       (6) Administrative appeals.--Section 322 of the Department 
     of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 
     (Public Law 102-381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note) and section 215 of 
     title 36, Code of Federal Regulations shall apply to projects 
     under this Act, except that--
       (A) to be eligible to file an appeal, an individual or 
     organization shall submit specific and substantive written 
     comments during the comment period; and
       (B) a determination that an emergency situation exists 
     pursuant to section 215.10 of title 36, Federal Regulations, 
     shall be made where it is determined that implementation of 
     all or part of a decision for a project under this Act is 
     necessary for relief from--
       (i) adverse affects on soil stability and water quality 
     resulting from vegetation loss; or
       (ii) loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

     SEC. 4. CONTRACTING AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Secretary may enter into contract or 
     cooperative agreements to carry out a project under this Act.
       (b) Exemption.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     law, the Secretary may limit competition for a contract or a 
     cooperative agreement under subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a multi-
     party monitoring group consisting of a representative number 
     of interested parties, as determined by the Secretary, to 
     monitor the performance and effectiveness of projects 
     conducted under this Act.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--The multi-party monitoring 
     group shall prepare annually a report to the Secretary on the 
     progress of the projects conducted under this act in 
     rehabilitating and restoring the North Fork drainage. The 
     Secretary shall submit the report to the Senate Subcommittee 
     on Interior Appropriations of the Senate Committee on 
     Appropriations.

     SEC. 6. SUNSET.

       The authority for the Secretary to issue a decision to 
     carryout a project under this Act shall expire 5 years from 
     the date of enactment.

     SEC. 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECORDS OF DECISION.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall publish new information 
     regarding forest wide estimates of old growth from volume 103 
     of the administrative record in the case captioned Ecology 
     Center v. Castaneda, CV-02-200-M-DWM (D. Mont.) for public 
     comment for a 30 day period. The Secretary shall review any 
     comments received during the comment period and decide 
     whether to modify the Records of Decision (hereinafter 
     referred to as the ``ROD's'') for the Pinkham, White Pine, 
     Kelsey-Beaver, Gold/Boulder/Sullivan, and Pink Stone projects 
     on the Kootenai National Forest. The ROD's, whether modified 
     or not, shall not be deemed arbitrary and capricious under 
     the NFMA, NEPA or other applicable law as long as each 
     project area retains 10% designated old growth in the project 
     area.


                           amendment no. 1773

(Purpose: To ensure the perpetual operation of water treatment centers 
            at the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation site.)

       At the end of Title III of the bill insert the following:

     SEC.   . ZORTMAN/LANDUSKY MINE RECLAMATION TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Zortman/
     Landusky Mine Reclamation Trust Fund'' (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Fund'').
       (b) For the fiscal year during which this Act is enacted 
     and each fiscal year thereafter until the aggregate amount 
     deposited in the Fund under this subsection is equal to at 
     least $22,500,000, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     deposit $2,250,000 in the Fund.
       (c) Investments.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only in 
     interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in 
     obligations guaranteed by the United States as to both 
     principal and interest.
       (d) Payments.--
       (1) In general.--All amounts credited as interest under 
     subsection (c) may be available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, to the State of Montana for use in accordance 
     with paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully capitalized.
       (2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under 
     paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of 
     Montana for use as State funds in

[[Page S11818]]

     accordance with paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully 
     capitalized.
       (3) Use of transferred funds.--The State of Montana shall 
     use the amounts transferred under paragraph (2) only to 
     supplement funding available from the State Administered 
     ``Zortman/Landusky Long-Term Water Treatment Trust Fund'' to 
     fund annual operation and maintenance costs for water 
     treatment related to the Zortman/Landusky mine site and 
     reclamation areas.
       (e) Transfers and Withdrawals.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury may not transfer or withdraw any amount deposited 
     under subsection (b).
       (f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as 
     are necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.


                           amendment no. 1774

   (Purpose: To facilitate renewal of grazing permits managed by the 
             Bureau of Land Management's Jarbridge office)

       At the end of Title I, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Nonrenewable grazing permits authorized in the 
     Jarbridge Field Office, Bureau of Land Management within the 
     past seven years shall be renewed under section 402 of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended 
     (43 U.S.C. 1752) and under section 3 of the Taylor Grazing 
     Act of 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315b). The terms and 
     conditions contained in the most recently expired 
     nonrenewable grazing permit shall continue in effect under 
     the renewed permit. Upon completion of any required analysis 
     or documentation, the permit may be canceled, suspended or 
     modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of 
     applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to extend the nonrenewable permits beyond the 
     standard one-year term.


                            report language

       Sec.   . Allows for the renewal of grazing permits in the 
     Jarbridge Field Office and makes the completion of the 
     required NEPA analysis a high priority while ensuring 
     completion of the necessary documents as soon as possible.


                           amendment no. 1775

   (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to interim compensation 
                   payments for Glacier Bay, Alaska)

       On page 63, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. INTERIM COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.

       Section 2303(b) of Public Law 106-246 (114 Stat. 549) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, unless the amount of the interim compensation 
     exceeds the amount of the final compensation''.


                           amendment no. 1776

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to applications for waivers of 
                       certain maintenance fees)

       On page 63, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1____. APPLICATIONS FOR WAIVERS OF MAINTENANCE FEES.

       Section 10101f(d)(3) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993 (30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(3)) is amended by inserting 
     after ``reason'' the following: ``(including, with respect to 
     any application filed on or after January 1, 1999, the filing 
     of the application after the statutory deadline)''.


                    amendment no. 1725, as modified

       On page 44, line 23, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided, That of this amount, sufficient funds 
     may be available for the Secretary of the Interior, not later 
     than 60 days after the last day of the fiscal year, to submit 
     to Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions made by 
     the Department of the Interior during such fiscal year of 
     articles, materials, or supplies that were manufactured 
     outside the United States. Such report shall separately 
     indicate the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased by the Department of the Interior that 
     were manufactured outside the United States, an itemized list 
     of all waivers under the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.) that were granted with respect to such articles, 
     materials, or supplies, and a summary of total procurement 
     funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus 
     funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States. The Secretary of the Interior shall make the report 
     publicly available by posting the report on an Internet 
     website.''.


                           amendment no. 1777

 (Purpose: To amend Sec. 301 of Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211) to include neighborhood electric vehicles in the 
               definition of alternative fueled vehicle)

       On page 24, line 5, immediately following the colon, insert 
     ``Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this 
     or any other Act may be used for planning, design, or 
     construction of any underground security screening or visitor 
     contact facility at the Washington Monument until such 
     facility has been approved in writing by the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations:''


                           amendment no. 1737

(Purpose: To authorize the use of proceeds from land sales in the State 
             of Nevada for Lake Tahoe restoration projects)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       Section 4(e)(3)(A) of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
     Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2346; 116 Stat. 2007) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (v), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) environmental restoration projects under sections 6 
     and 7 of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (114 Stat. 2354) and 
     environmental improvement payments under section 2(g) of 
     Public Law 96-586 (94 Stat. 3382), in an amount equal to the 
     cumulative amounts authorized to be appropriated for such 
     projects under those Acts and in accordance with a revision 
     to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 
     Implementation Agreement to implement this section, which 
     shall include a mechanism to ensure appropriate stakeholders 
     from the States of California and Nevada participate in the 
     process to recommend projects for funding; and''.


                    amendment no. 1732, as modified

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ACQUISITION OF LAND IN NYE COUNTY, NEVADA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary 
     of the Interior (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') may acquire by donation all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the parcel of land (including improvements 
     to the land) described in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the parcel of land in Nye County, Nevada--
       (1) consisting of not more than 15 acres;
       (2) comprising a portion of Tract 37 located north of the 
     center line of Nevada State Highway 374; and
       (3) located in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\ sec. 22, 
     T. 12 S., R. 46 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
       (c) Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not accept for 
     donation under subsection (a) any land or structure if the 
     Secretary determines that the land or structure, or a portion 
     of the land or structure, has or or may be contaminated 
     with--
       (A) hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, as 
     defined in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601); or
       (B) any petroleum substance, fraction, or derivative.
       (2) Certification.--Before accepting a donation of land 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall certify that any 
     structures on the land to be donated--
       (A) meet all applicable building code requirements, as 
     determined by an independent contractor; and
       (B) are in good condition, as determined by the Director of 
     the National Park Service.
       (d) Use of Land.--The parcel of land acquired under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary for the 
     development, operation, and maintenance of administrative and 
     visitor facilities for Death Valley National Park.


                           amendment no. 1778

 (Purpose: To amend Sec. 301 of Title III of the Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211) to include neighborhood electric vehicles in the 
               definition of alternative fueled vehicle)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 3  . Section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 13211) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or a dual fueled vehicle'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (3) and inserting ``, a dual fueled vehicle, or 
     a neighborhood electric vehicle'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (13);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (14) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) the term `neighborhood electric vehicle' means a 
     motor vehicle that qualifies as both--
       ``(A) a low-speed vehicle, as such term is defined in 
     section 571.3(b) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; 
     and
       ``(B) a zero-emission vehicle, as such term is defined in 
     Section 86.1702-99 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations''.


                           amendment no. 1779

          (Purpose: To facilitate renewal of grazing permits)

       On page 122, strike Section 324 and insert:
       Sec. 324. A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary 
     of the Interior or a grazing permit issued by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture where National Forest System lands are 
     involved that expires, is transferred, or waived during 
     fiscal years 2004-2008 shall be renewed under section 402 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 
     amended (43 U.S.C. 1752), section 19 of the Granger-Thye Act, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 5801), title III of the Bankhead-Jones 
     Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), or, if applicable, 
     section 510 of the California Desert Protection Act (16 
     U.S.C. 410aaa-50). The terms and conditions contained in the 
     expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease shall 
     continue in effect under the renewed permit or lease until 
     such time as the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of 
     Agriculture as appropriate completes processing of such 
     permit or lease in compliance with all applicable laws and 
     regulations, at which

[[Page S11819]]

     time such permit or lease may be canceled, suspended or 
     modified, in whole or in part, to meet the requirements of 
     such applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to alter the statutory authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture: 
     Provided, That where National Forest System lands are 
     involved and the Secretary of Agriculture has renewed an 
     expired or waived grazing permit prior to or during fiscal 
     year 2004, the terms and conditions of the renewed grazing 
     permit shall remain in effect until such time as the 
     Secretary of Agriculture completes processing of the renewed 
     permit in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations 
     or until the expiration of the renewed permit, whichever 
     comes first. Upon completion of the processing, the permit 
     may be canceled, suspended or modified, in whole or in part, 
     to meet the requirements of applicable laws and regulations. 
     Provided further, Beginning in November 2004, and every year 
     thereafter, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 
     shall report to Congress the extent to which they are 
     completing analysis required under applicable laws prior to 
     the expiration of grazing permits, and beginning in May 2004, 
     and every year thereafter, the Secretaries shall provide 
     Congress recommendations for legislative provisions necessary 
     to ensure all permit renewals are completed in a timely 
     manner. The legislative recommendations provided shall be 
     consistent with the funding levels requested in the 
     Secretaries' budget proposals; Provided further, 
     Notwithstanding Section 504 of the Rescissions Act (109 Stat 
     212), the Secretaries in their sole discretion determine the 
     priority and timing for completing required environmental 
     analysis of grazing allotments based on the environmental 
     significance of the allotments and funding available to the 
     Secretaries for this purpose.


                    amendment no. 1743, as modified

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary to use funds for the Blueberry 
                             Lake project)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Funds appropriated for the Green Mountain National Forest 
     previously or in this Act may be used for the acquisition of 
     lands in the Blueberry Lake area.


                           amendment no. 1733

  (Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land to the city of Las 
 Vegas, Nevada, for the construction of affordable housing for seniors)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

       Section 705(b) of the Clark County Conservation of Public 
     Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2015) is 
     amended by striking ``parcels of land'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``parcel of land identified as `Tract C' on the map and the 
     approximately 10 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, 
     described as follows: in the NW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ of 
     section 28, T. 20 S., R. 60 E., Mount Diablo Base and 
     Meridian.''.


                           amendment no. 1780

  (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a 
      report on the use of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3____. NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE REPORT.

       Not later than December 1, 2003, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report that--
       (1) describes--
       (A) the various scenarios under which the Northeast Home 
     Heating Oil Reserve may be used; and
       (B) the underlying assumptions for each of the scenarios; 
     and
       (2) includes recommendations for alternative formulas to 
     determine supply disruption.


                           amendment no. 1749

  (Purpose: To exempt the rural business enterprise grants awarded to 
           Oakridge, OR from the business size restrictions)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``The 
     business size restrictions for the rural business enterprise 
     grants for Oakridge, OR do not apply.''


                           amendment no. 1781

 (Purpose: To ensure that funds allocated to the Indian Health Service 
 are not redirected to programs and projects that have not been fully 
justified in the agency's annual budget request and concurred in by the 
              House and Senate Appropriations Committees)

       On page 95, at the end of line 17, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       None of the funds made available to the Indian Health 
     Service in this Act shall be used for any Department of 
     Health and Human Services-wide consolidation, restructuring 
     or realignment of functions or for any assessments or charges 
     associated with any such consolidation, restructuring or 
     realignment, except for purposes for which funds are 
     specifically provided in this Act.


                           amendment no. 1782

     (Purpose: To make technical modification to the Marine Mammal 
                            Protection Act)

       At the appropriate place at the end of Title III, insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec.   . Section 104 (16 U.S.C. 1374) is amended--(1) in 
     subsection (c)(5)(D) by striking ``the date of the enactment 
     of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994'' and 
     inserting ``February 18, 1997''.

         Funding for Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership, Maine

  Ms. COLLINS. I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the 
Interior Appropriations subcommittee for the fine work he has done 
putting together this bill. The bill includes substantial funding for 
programs to conserve our Nation's treasured lands and resources, 
including $85 million for the forest legacy program; a program that 
means so much to my home State of Maine.
  There is one Maine conservation project, however, that does not 
receive funds through the Senate bill. It is the Downeast Lakes 
Forestry Partnership, the goal of which is the sustainable conservation 
of 342,000 acres in Maine, including 78,800 acres of pristine lakes, 
54,000 acres of productive wetlands, 445 miles of unspoiled shoreline, 
and 342,000 acres of remote forestland. This important project, which 
enjoys widespread support in my State, including the support of the 
Governor, is at a critical stage. But it requires Federal support in 
the coming fiscal year to help bring the project to fruition.
  I would therefore ask the chairman whether he will commit to doing 
all he can to consider funding the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership 
when this bill goes to conference?
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your pledge of support, and 
for the leadership you consistently demonstrate on conservation issues.


                          land remote sensing

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Interior Appropriations bill includes 
funding for the United States Geological Survey, USGS, to conduct land 
remote sensing. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleagues from Montana and North Dakota regarding this funding in the 
Interior Appropriations bill.
  It is my understanding that a significant portion of the USGS mapping 
program budget comes from the sale of data collected from the Landsat 7 
satellite. Over the past several months, that satellite has been 
experiencing problems that will severely hamper its ability to collect 
scientifically-useful data. Just last week, USGS determined that the 
problem affecting the Landsat 7 satellite is permanent. While the USGS 
is working to develop a long-term solution to address this situation, 
it is clear that USGS will not be collecting the full amount of income 
from data sales originally planned for when the Senate Appropriations 
Committee reported out the Interior Appropriations bill. As a result, 
USGS will not be able to operate in accordance with the budget on which 
this will is based.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Montana and the Senator from 
North Dakota if the Interior Subcommittee is aware of this problem and 
willing to work with the United States Geological Survey to address 
this issue during the conference with the House?
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I concur. The chairman is correct, and I, 
too, want to help ensure this situation is addressed in conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from North Dakota for their cooperation and their clarification 
regarding this matter.


                              national zoo

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President I want to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee concerning the 
funding in this bill for our National Zoo.

[[Page S11820]]

  I know that the chairman is very aware of the problems that have 
plagued our National Zoo over this last year. Many of these problems 
simply relate to deteriorating physical conditions of the zoo. 
Buildings and other animal habitats are literally falling apart.
  This crown jewel of the Smithsonian is actually at risk of losing its 
accreditation from the American Zoo and Aquarian Association. What a 
terrible message this would send to the American public that its 
national zoo cannot even meet accreditation standards. We owe it to the 
American people, the thousands of children who visit the zoo annually, 
to visitors from all over the world, and most importantly to the safety 
and protection of these wonderful animals to do all we can to restore 
the conditions there to a safe and healthy environment.
  I ask the chairman of the subcommittee, in conference with the House 
on this bill will you work to provide a level of funding that will once 
again restore this wonderful institution to the level befitting of 
being a ``national'' zoo and to help maintain its accreditation?
  Mr. BURNS. 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

  Mr. PRYOR. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me 
in supporting Federal funding for the Little Rock Audubon Nature 
Center. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center is a collaborative 
private-public effort to provide tools and services to historically 
underserved children. Using the prestige of the Audubon Society's 
reputation, this project will pull together all stakeholders to promote 
national science and math goals, environmental education, and wildlife 
observation.
  This isn't the nature center we grew up with. This is a new concept 
that creates a place to learn math, science, and other academic 
subjects in a nurturing environment reinforced by a hands-on, out-of-
doors experiences. This is a chance to support what our children learn 
in the classroom and in the textbooks with stimulating reality. This 
model of learning will stoke our children's curiosity and provoke them 
to start asking the questions all great thinkers pose: Why does this 
work? How can that happen? What makes this possible?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I join my friend and colleague in supporting this 
project. I believe this will be a place that junior high and high 
school kids will truly enjoy and where they can be engaged. According 
to the Pew Foundation, academic achievement, student engagement, and 
teacher satisfaction all improve significantly when schools link 
academics with hands-on study of the surrounding environment and 
community and that is exactly what the Little Rock Audubon Nature 
Center will do.
  The Nature Center site is just a 15-minute school bus ride from 50 
schools in southeast Little Rock, giving it the ability to serve as an 
outdoor classroom for thousands of school children.
  In short, this is a kid-friendly, cost-effective approach to reaching 
the underserved and teaching science and math. This is the kind of 
project this body must support to help our kids meet the challenges of 
the future.
  Mr. PRYOR. Given current budget constraints, it is more important 
than even to use scarce resources wisely and I rise today to provide my 
colleagues with not only the numerous benefits associated with this 
innovative approach to educating our children, but also the costs. 
Specifically, I am seeking an appropriation of $1.2 million for the 
project but $1.2 million that will be leveraged by private funding on a 
better than 2 to 1 match. As Senator Lincoln pointed out, this Center 
will serve thousands of children and I believe that federal investment 
in the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will produce broad returns 
that deserve the attention of this body.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. PRYOR. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota and our ranking member.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am aware of the Senator's interest in the Little Rock 
Audubon Nature Center, but did the Senator say that the Center will 
support national science and math goals?
  Mr. PRYOR. I did. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will assist 
schools in teaching the sciences of ornithology, ecology, biology, 
botany and environmental health, to name a few; to excite young 
people's minds and prepare them for careers in the sciences; and to 
help improve state science scores. Senator Dorgan, are you aware that 
our childrens' math and science scores in America are continuing to 
decline throughout the country? As compared to 38 countries around the 
world the United States ranks 19th in Mathematics Achievement Scores, 
according to a 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science 
Study. I am particularly concerned about this decline in our students' 
performance in my home state of Arkansas. We need fresh ideas and new 
approaches to turn this situation around. So, I was very interested to 
learn of a recent study in Northwest Arkansas showed that nature 
education can be a very powerful tool for helping to address this 
problem.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. What we are talking about here is stimulating the minds 
of children and fostering their aspirations to become our next great 
scientists and engineers. The education investments we make now can 
lead our country to the discovery of the next vital scientific finding, 
invention or cure. This is an opportunity to inspire our children to 
strive for greatness in science and mathematics and to harvest their 
creativity, curiosity and knowledge so they may one day help their 
fellow man and society at large.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me add to the chairman's remarks that I, too, am 
interested in investing in programs that support math and science.
  Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate the comments from the distinguished Chairman 
and Ranking Member and I would like to call to their attention other 
benefits associated with the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center which 
would benefit underserved minority communities. In fact, the nature 
center is located in a former federal housing site for African American 
veterans from World War II, which has been closed for years. The center 
is located in the Granite Mountain community in my home state of 
Arkansas that lies within the boundary of a Federal empowerment zone 
and would serve, in particular, the minority community and school 
children of southeast Little Rock.
  Mr. DORGAN. So this project would not only help to improve math and 
science scores for all children but in particular help to assist 
underserved communities? What other benefits would it provide?
  Mr. PRYOR. The Nature Center also would provide access to a beautiful 
450 acre park that is currently unavailable to the citizens of Arkansas 
due to inadequate city funds. This park represents one of the most 
unique natural areas in Southeast Arkansas because of its incredible 
biodiversity and a globally significant geological formation, making 
this site both ecologically important and of great educational value.
  Mr. DORGAN. I agree that this sounds like a very worthwhile project. 
What Federal appropriation would be necessary to begin work on it?
  Mr. PRYOR. I am seeking $1.2 million which could be phased in over a 
multi-year programming plan with a private fund match. I want to point 
out the Audubon Society's great success in my home state of Arkansas in 
leveraging private funding to match federal outlays for conservation 
projects. For example, the Audubon Society successfully restored 
thousands of acres of Fourche Creek by leveraging private funds to 
match federal dollars at a ratio of more than 2-to-1. The track record 
has been established and the private community has made its pledge to 
allow this Federal

[[Page S11821]]

appropriation to be a catalyst for private additional investment in 
this worthwhile project.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate this thorough report about the benefits of 
the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate those remarks. I am making a personal request 
that the Senate give this project the initial funding needed to help it 
become a reality for the children of Arkansas. I thank the Senators for 
assistance in this matter.


                         fossil energy research

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a short 
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Interior, Senator Burns. The matter is of great 
importance to my constituent, Air Products and Chemicals of Allentown, 
PA, and involves two programs in the Fossil Energy Research and 
Development section of the Interior Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BURNS. I am glad to discuss this with my colleague.
  Mr. SPECTER. Air Products and its partners, including the Department 
of Energy, are developing a unique, oxygen-producing technology to use 
in producing oxygen and electric power for the utility, iron/steel, 
nonferrous metals, glass, pulp and paper, cogeneration, and chemicals 
and refining industries. This project, ITM Oxygen, is a cornerstone 
project in the Department of Energy's Vision-21 Program that has the 
potential to significantly reduce the cost of tonnage oxygen plants for 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, IGCC, systems. The ITM Oxygen 
program is entering its final three funding years during which Air 
Products and its partners plan to demonstrate and test this unique 
technology with a pilot unit at a suitable field site. Air Products and 
the Department of Energy are sharing the cost of this program together 
with each party responsible for 50 percent. Underfunding this program 
in FY04 will result in slowing the technical process and schedule of 
this important project, will halt crucial expansion of test platforms 
for the final demonstration unit, and in the end will add approximately 
$10 million more to the total program cost.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Chairman for recognizing the 
importance of the ITM Oxygen program and look forward to working with 
him and his staff to see that the Department of Energy follows the 
Committee's intentions.
  Another project Air Products is involved in with the Department of 
Energy is the ITM Syngas project, the purpose of which is to develop 
and demonstrate a ceramic membrane reactor able to separate oxygen from 
air in a way that produces hydrogen for use in centralized power 
generation or with regional distribution for fuel cell applications. 
This technology also captures the carbon dioxide in the process leading 
to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, a goal we should all support. The 
bill includes increases in the Transportation fuels section for syngas 
membrane technology. I would like to ask the Chairman if part of this 
increase is intended to be used to fully fund the Air Products ITM 
Syngas project.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important 
items with the Chairman today and thank him for his attention to these 
crucial fossil energy research and development projects.


                         fetal alcohol syndrome

  Mrs. MURRAY. I would like to enter into a coloquy with Chairman Burns 
and Senator Dorgan. The Indian Health Service and the University of 
Washington have been conducting research into Fetal Alcohol Syndrome 
with funds provided in the Interior Appropriations bill. I want to 
thank the Chairman and Senator Dorgan for the Subcommittee's continued 
support for these research efforts. I hope to work with the Senators in 
conference related to this on-going research.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the most pressing health 
issues facing Native Americans and I am committed to helping advance 
our research efforts in this field.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan.


                   USGS binational groundwater study

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment to S. 1391 
that would allocate $950,000 from the United States Geological 
Survey's, USGS, Ground-Water Resources Program to initiate a United 
States-Mexico binational groundwater study of transboundary aquifers. 
The parameters of this study have been developed by the USGS in 
cooperation with the Water Resources Research Institutes in Texas, New 
Mexico, Arizona, and California, and other interested parties. It is 
very important that the USGS receive funding to implement its plan. 
During the past decade, the United States-Mexico border region 
experienced significant economic expansion that was accompanied by 
rapid population growth and urban development. It is now anticipated 
that water quantity and water quality will most likely be the limiting 
factors that ultimately control future economic development, population 
growth, and human health in the border region. The binational program 
funded by this request will be a scientific partnership between the 
USGS, the border states, and several key Universities in the region. It 
will systematically assess priority transboundary aquifers, and will 
provide a scientific foundation and create sophisticated tools for 
State and local water resource managers to address the challenges 
facing them in the border region.
  I have discussed the need for this amendment with the distinguished 
chairman, and he has been very helpful in discussing various options to 
secure funding to initiate this study. The President's budget requested 
$1.0 million for USGS to begin work on a closely related United States-
Mexico Border Human Health Initiative. The House of Representatives has 
provided the full amount in its version of the Interior appropriations 
bill, but the Senate has only been able to provide $500,000 for this 
effort. In conference, I have requested that the chairman agree to the 
higher amount that the House has provided for the Border health 
initiative but to direct the USGS to use the additional $500,000 to 
begin the binational groundwater study. I believe this work will 
address the critical need I just described while also providing 
valuable data and information that is consistent with the border health 
initiative.

  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
consideration and his work on this important matter. I look forward to 
continue working with him as the Interior appropriations bill goes to 
conference.

[[Page S11822]]

                           e85 infrastructure

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for 
the committee's recognition of the important environmental and energy 
security benefits of expanding our nation's E85 Infrastructure.
  E85 is a form of alternative transportation fuel consisting of 85 
percent Ethanol and 15 percent gasoline developed to address America's 
air quality needs and dependence on foreign oil. Currently, there are 
over 3 million E85-capable vehicles in the National Vehicle Fleet. The 
use of E85 in these vehicles has the potential to reduce foreign oil 
imports by 34 million barrels a year, while adding $3 billion to total 
farm income and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  In the fiscal year 2003 Interior bill, in the committee report for 
the transportation sector, the committee recommended a $2 million 
increase in technology deployment for the Clean Cities Program. The 
report language further recognizes the work being done by the National 
Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E85 fueling capacity and urges 
the Department of Energy to give careful consideration to proposals 
that might be submitted to further this goal. My understanding, is that 
the Department, consistent with this language, has awarded funds to the 
NEVC and others for the continued development of E85 Infrastructure and 
E85 promotion.
  On page 69 of the fiscal year 2004 Interior Subcommittee report, 
under weatherization and intergovernmental activities, it states:

       Within the amount provided for clean cities, the department 
     should continue efforts to expand E85 fueling capacity.

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


                       Air Products and Chemicals

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a short 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Interior, Senator Conrad Burns. The matter is of 
great importance to my constituent, Air Products and Chemicals of 
Allentown, PA and involves two programs in the Fossil Energy Research 
and Development section of the Interior Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BURNS. I am glad to discuss this with my colleague.
  Mr. SPECTER. Air Products and its partners, including the Department 
of Energy, are developing a unique, oxygen-producing technology to use 
in producing oxygen and electric power for the utility, iron/steel, 
nonferrous metals, glass, pulp and paper, cogeneration, and chemicals 
and refining industries. This project, ITM Oxygen, is a cornerstone 
project in the Department of Energy's Vision-21 Program that has the 
potential to significantly reduce the cost of tonnage oxygen plants for 
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, IGCC, systems. The ITM Oxygen 
program is entering its final three funding years during which Air 
Products and its partners plan to demonstrate and test this unique 
technology with a pilot unit at a suitable field site. Air Products and 
the Department of Energy are sharing the cost of this program together 
with each party responsible for 50 percent. Underfunding this program 
in Fiscal Year 2004 will result in slowing the technical process and 
schedule of this important project, will halt crucial expansion of test 
platforms for the final demonstration unit, and in the end will add 
approximately $10 million more to the total program cost.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chairman for recognizing the 
importance of the ITM Oxygen program and look forward to working with 
him and his staff to see that the Department of Energy follows the 
committee's intentions.
  Another project Air Products is involved in with the Department of 
Energy is the ITM Syngas project, the purpose of which is to develop 
and demonstrate a ceramic membrane reactor able to separate oxygen from 
air in a way that produces hydrogen for use in centralized power 
generation or with regional distribution for fuel cell applications. 
This technology also captures the carbon dioxide in the process leading 
to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, a goal we should all support. The 
bill includes increases in the Transportation fuels section for syngas 
membrane technology. I would like to ask the chairman if part of this 
increase is intended to be used to fully fund the Air Products ITM 
Syngas project.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. SPECTER. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important 
items with the chairman today, and thank him for his attention to these 
crucial fossil energy research and development projects.


                     Wind River Irrigation Project

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about a promise the 
Federal Government made to Wyoming's Eastern Shoshone and Northern 
Arapaho Tribes nearly 100 years ago. A promise my colleague from 
Wyoming and I tried to fulfill this year through the appropriations 
process. Unfortunately, due to confusion about the project, we came up 
short-handed. As a result, I would like to take a few minutes to set 
the record straight.
  In 1905, the Federal Government entered into an agreement with the 
Wind River Tribes to initiate and complete an irrigation project in 
exchange for the opening of 1.4 million acres of land to the United 
States. The Tribes lived up to their end of the bargain. The United 
States, on the other hand, has not. Since 1905, the project, known as 
the Wind River Irrigation Project has continually battled budgetary 
shortfalls, inadequate maintenance, and bureaucratic red tape.
  The history of the Project's funding is long and complex. 
Construction began in the early 1900s and was funded under the Public 
Works Administration Project's budget. Significant improvements were 
made to the Project under this funding scheme and the Project grew to 
13 main canals, 94 main laterals, 268 sub-laterals, two feeder canals 
and a couple of drainage canals. However, in the 1950s, new 
construction essentially stopped as Congress changed the way it funded 
Indian irrigation projects. When Congress began making lump sum 
appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Construction of 
Indian Irrigation Projects in 1951, funding became even more sporadic 
and unpredictable. Sometimes the system was in fair condition, but most 
of the time it was in poor condition. Finally, in the 1980s, Congress 
stopped appropriating all together for the construction of Indian 
Irrigation projects. As a result, the only significant Federal funds 
the Wind River Irrigation Project has received in nearly 20 years has 
been for the rehabilitation of the Washakie Dam, which was funded using 
money from the Safety in Dams program within the BIA.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. BURNS. 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?
  Mr. ENZI. It is my understanding that the BIA owns and operates this 
system and has been responsible for the collection of the operation and 
management fees since the project was authorized in 1905.
  Mr. THOMAS. Would my fellow Senator from Wyoming yield?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.

[[Page S11823]]

  Mr. THOMAS. It is also my understanding that the BIA assessed the 
need for repairs on several occasions, including a 1968 Completion 
Report that found 74 percent of the irrigation structures and 61 
percent of the canals needed serious rehabilitation at a cost of $6.6 
million in 1968 dollars or approximately $26.0 million in 1993 dollars.
  Furthermore, since the BIA's 1968 Completion Report, several 
additional studies have been conducted, specifically one in 1988 which 
indicates that $50 million would be needed to completely rehabilitate 
the Wind River Irrigation system. The most recent study completed in 
1994 cited that over 60 percent, or 1200 structures need repair or 
replacement, and 45 percent, or 190 miles of canals and laterals need 
repair or reconstruction. Due to the Project's current configuration, 
it has only 66 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal. In 
comparison, Midvale Irrigation District, which lies adjacent to the 
Wind River Reservation, has over 160 acres per mile of canal.
  Mr. ENZI. Is the Senator aware that as a general guideline, the 
Bureau of Reclamation suggests that irrigation projects in the region 
need at least 140 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal to be 
economically self sufficient? No wonder the Wind River Irrigation 
Project has been forced into a state of disrepair. It is pretty 
difficult to collect enough user fees to maintain a system when it is 
only serving 55 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal.
  Mr. THOMAS. My colleague is exactly right. This situation has 
resulted in a critical shortage of financial resources to maintain 
Project facilities, causing less efficient use of water, progressively 
deteriorating crop quality, and an increase in the proportion of income 
water users' pay in fee assessments.
  This lack of resources should not continue in the Wind River Basin, 
or catastrophic events like major floods from dam failure and/or severe 
droughts could occur. The Wind River Irrigation Project needs 
rehabilitation. The water users in the area--folks who have been hit 
hard by region's drought--cannot continue to operate their ranches and 
farms without addressing the root of the problem. The Wind River 
Irrigation Project is the source of water problems on the Reservation. 
It affects Indians and non-Indians, and it is recognized by the State 
of Wyoming as the most critical agricultural and economic issue facing 
residents on and near the Reservation.
  Mr. ENZI. We are both from the great State of Wyoming and I am 
extremely encouraged by the leadership our State government has shown 
in helping to address the water problems on the Reservation. We both 
received letters from our Governor, the Director of the Wyoming Water 
Development Commission, county commissioners from that area and three 
State legislators in full support of the project. We have also heard 
from the Mayor of Riverton, which sits adjacent to the Wind River 
Reservation, and the three surrounding irrigation districts. While the 
vocal support is helpful, I am even more encouraged by the State's 
willingness to put its money where its mouth is.
  Mr. THOMAS. My colleague is correct. I would also like to add that 
during Wyoming's last legislative session, the Wyoming legislature and 
the Wyoming Water Development Commission worked closely with the Wind 
River Tribes to develop and pass legislation that will enable the 
Tribes to act as sponsors of water development projects through the 
Wyoming Water Development Program. According to the Director of the 
Wyoming Water Commission, funding for the Wyoming Water Development 
Program is appropriated annually by the legislature for specific 
projects, like rehabilitating certain parts of the Wind River 
Irrigation Project. Unfortunately, the State does not have the 
financial means or the desire to fund a federally owned and operated 
system by itself. However, this cooperation highlights that Federal 
dollars spent on the Wind River Irrigation Project would go a long way 
towards not only its rehabilitation, but would also encourage the State 
of Wyoming to become more involved in addressing the water needs of 
that area.
  Mr. BURNS. Senator, we included language in the Interior Subcommittee 
Report that required the BIA, if legally responsible, to formulate a 
plan to address the rehabilitation cost no later than 120 days after 
the Interior Appropriations bill is enacted. Do you believe the BIA has 
clarified its legal obligation?
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator for the question and yes, according to 
information provided by the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs owns the system. Although a portion is managed by the 
Tribes under a 638 contract, the BIA clearly owns and operates the Wind 
River Irrigation Project.
  That is why it is so critical that the Federal Government step up and 
help fulfill this promise to the Tribes on the Wind River Reservation. 
Rehabilitating the Wind River Irrigation Project is the only way 
farmers, ranchers and other land users can produce their commodities. 
Furthermore, unless we improve the system so that it is a reliable 
water source, the Tribes cannot attract new and diverse businesses. 
Without funds to fix this problem, the Reservation cannot move into the 
21st century successfully.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. ENZI. We will have to find a way to fund the Wind River 
Irrigation Project and other similar Indian Irrigation projects in the 
future. I hope we can work with our colleagues on the Budget Committee 
and Appropriations Committee next year to address the critical 
shortfall in funding and the lack of planning to address these problems 
within the BIA.


                 private landowner's incentive program

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana, the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Interior appropriations 
subcommittee, for his leadership in bringing this important spending 
bill to the floor and for helping us establish the spending priorities 
for our Nation's public lands. Wyoming is greatly impacted by this bill 
and Senator Burns' leadership is very much appreciated. Because of this 
tremendous impact on Wyoming, I would like to ask my colleague if he 
would join me in a colloquy to discuss one of the programs that is 
funded in his bill. Specifically, I would like to discuss the 
Department of the Interior's Private Landowner's Incentive Program and 
its potential impact on land management planning on private lands 
within the U.S. Forest Service's Thunder Basin National Grasslands.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. ENZI. I would like to share one example of an effort in Wyoming 
that has already benefited from this program and which I feel could 
greatly benefit in the future from its continued participation. Three 
years ago I met with officials from the Thunder Basin National 
Grasslands Landowners Association, the Department of the Interior and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to discuss the role that private

[[Page S11824]]

landowners could play in developing land management plans on western 
national grasslands. The Landowners Association presented a 
revolutionary proposal to combine the talent and resources of all local 
landowners to develop an ecosystem assessment and to enter into a 
series of ecosystem management strategy and conservation agreements 
with the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that 
would integrate a comprehensive, multi-species land management proposal 
for more than 260,000 acres of Federal and private lands within the 
U.S. Forest Service's Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Their proposal 
was to first establish a scientific baseline where they catalogued what 
was on the land and what species existed. Then they proposed to use 
that baseline to make ecosystem-wide management decisions that would 
make the land as a whole more vibrant and more sustainable for a number 
of species including the black-tailed prairie dog, the black footed 
ferret, and the sage grouse. What they would not do was make management 
plans based on the presence or absence of any one specific species or 
to pit different species' habitat requirements against each other. 
Their goal was to make the land healthier as a whole so that all 
species would be better off.
  As a result of their efforts the Department of the Interior was able 
to provide an initial grant to the association through the Landowner's 
Incentive Program of $150,000 that allowed them to assemble an advisory 
committee made up of national grasslands experts that has helped them 
develop scientific research and monitoring protocols that are now being 
used to establish baseline information on area wildlife and ecosystem 
concerns. In fiscal year 2003, we funded this program at $175,000 which 
allowed the association to continue its monitoring efforts and to host 
a symposium in Wyoming on cooperative land use efforts. I would like to 
see this group funded again in fiscal year 2004 at a minimum of 
$175,000 to ensure that their efforts have not been wasted.
  I would like to ask my colleague if he has any thoughts on whether or 
not we should continue funding this program.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleague for his thoughts and once again 
express my appreciation for his leadership in these important issues. I 
thank the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this program.


                            Rebuild America

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and Senator 
Dorgan in a colloquy concerning the Rebuild America Program at the 
Department of Energy. The events of August have dramatically shown all 
of us that we need to take immediate steps to increase the reliability 
of our electricity grid. In Vermont, we came very close to being swept 
up in the blackout cascade. Our transmission grid is under increasing 
demand pressure. Although there are several proposals to upgrade the 
transmission grid, everyone recognizes that the only action we can take 
immediately is energy conservation. This is why I strongly support the 
Rebuild America Program to help bring emerging technologies to our 
States to improve energy efficiency in buildings. I would like to work 
with the chairman and Senator Dorgan to increase funding for this 
program to bring it closer to the Fiscal Year 2003 level.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman and Senator Dorgan. With the events 
of last month, Vermonters and people across the country need the 
information and outreach that this program provides. I strongly urge 
the chairman to use the conference to return this program to a level 
approaching its Fiscal Year 2003 funding of $12.7 million.


                         zero energy buildings

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Energy and 
Water Development Committee and a member of the Interior Committee, I 
rise to express my support for the Zero Energy Buildings program. As a 
result of the administration's reorganization of the Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy account, this program was shifted from the solar 
technologies account to the buildings account. Yet, the administration 
requested $4 million to fund this program from the Energy and Water 
Bill--a position that both the House and Senate subcommittees did not 
support.
  This awkward funding situation, if not fixed, will cause us to lose 
momentum on this important program. Solar initiatives are generally 
funded from the Energy and Water development bill. Building initiatives 
are generally funded from Interior. It is my intention to work to 
restore funding for this program in a manner acceptable to both 
subcommittees.
  ZEB boasts some major achievements given its relative youth. The 
United States Department of Energy, teaming with homebuilders, energy 
efficiency professionals, and the renewables industry--primarily the 
solar industry--are responsible for the creation of the next generation 
of homes. These homes are more energy efficient than ever and self-
generate to the point where their progeny are expected to reach net 
zero energy consumption. We need these homes to proliferate so that we 
can enjoy increased national security through a reduction in imported 
fuels; a cleaner environment; a more reliable grid; and as important as 
any element, cheaper and more predictable energy costs for American 
homeowners and small businesses.
  Several of the largest homebuilders in the United States now 
participate in this program, including: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, Shea 
Homes, Pardee/Weyerhauser, Morrison Homes, and Mercedes Homes. Many of 
these have sent letters of support for the program, and it is my 
understanding that about one dozen additional homebuilders are planning 
to join with DOE on this program.
  The Solar Decathlon held on the Mall in Washington, DC last year, 
which attracted over 100,000 visitors, featured Zero Energy Homes 
constructed by university teams from across the United States.
  I am proud to say that a Zero Energy Home is now under construction 
in Las Vegas and will serve as the ``show home'' for next year's 
International Builders Show hosted by NAHB, which is expected to be 
attended by more than 90,000 building industry representatives.
  In a strong endorsement letter of the program, Michael Luzier, 
president of the NAHB Research Center, states:

       I urge you to find funds within DOE's budget so the Zero 
     Energy Home program continuity will not be lost. To lose the 
     momentum toward energy independence that this program has 
     created within the home building industry would be a shame. I 
     fear that without funding in FY '04, we will lose the 
     interest of builders we have been working with and the 
     progress in home energy efficiency we all support.

  For all of the above reasons, I request the chairman's assistance in 
working with the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to find 
funding for this program in a way that compliments and does not harm 
other worthy efforts.
  Mr. BURNS. 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

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today 
would provide sufficient funding from the underlying bill to enable the 
Secretary of the Interior to submit to Congress a report on the amount 
of goods acquired by that Department in fiscal year 2004 that were made 
overseas.

[[Page S11825]]

  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for working with me to include this important provision in 
the bill.
  My amendment requires that this report include the following 
information: (a) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
supplies purchased that are manufactured outside of the United States; 
(b) an itemized list of all waivers of the Buy American Act granted 
with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies, and (c) a 
summary of total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the 
United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the 
United States.
  The amendment also requires that these reports should be made 
publicly available on the Internet.
  Current law requires that only the Department of Defense report 
annually on its use of waivers of domestic procurement laws. Earlier 
this year, I introduced legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act 
of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the Federal 
Government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its 
purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic 
companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. One part 
of my bill would require that all Federal Departments and Agencies 
submit the annual reports that are currently required only of the 
Pentagon. The amendment that I am offering today is based on that 
provision in my bill. Recently, the Senate adopted a similar amendment 
that I offered to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education and energy 
and water appropriations bills.
  The Buy American Act requires that the Federal Government support 
domestic businesses and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. 
The underlying bill expresses the sense of the Senate that goods and 
equipment purchased with the funds included in this bill should be 
American-made.
  It only makes sense that Federal Departments and Agencies be required 
to report to Congress on their compliance with Federal law and with 
congressional intent regarding this important matter.
  The Department of Labor reported recently that the United States 
economy lost 93,000 jobs in the month of August, including 44,000 
manufacturing jobs. The stagnant economy and continued loss of high-
paying manufacturing jobs underscore the need for the Federal 
Government to support American workers and businesses by buying 
American-made goods.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee 
for agreeing to accept my amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a 
disturbing shift in our country's historic support for programs that 
protect our wildlife refuges, forests and other open spaces. 
Particularly, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF.
  The Bush administration's 2004 funding request represents a 
significant decrease in support for land acquisition.
  Yet this direction is the opposite of what then Governor Bush 
promised during his 2000 campaign.
  Governor Bush issued a campaign paper on September 13, 2000, that 
promised to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 
million.
  The fund has been enormously effective over the years and is funded, 
not by taxpayers but from a portion of fees from oil and gas receipts 
which Congress committed in 1965.
  Yet despite the President's pledge, 1 year later the Administration 
diverted $456 million of that fund to other purposes.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, for Fiscal Year 
2004, the administration has proposed to decrease Federal land 
acquisition funding to $128 million below the FY2003 funding level, 
which will more than offset proposed increases in State grants.
  I want to commend by colleagues on the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee who have worked very hard under difficult budgetary 
conditions to develop the best bill they could.
  But the President is playing a funding ``shell game.'' While he 
claims to support conservation funding, he once again proposes to use 
$246 million of the LWCF to pay for non-conservation programs.
  Only by counting as many as 15 other programs in its annual budget 
request programs NOT authorized for LWCF funding under the original 
1965 law does the President's budget make it appear that the LWCF is 
well-funded.
  Turning his back on campaign promises aside, the President's budget 
would actually cut the fund's core Federal land acquisition programs by 
40 percent from FY03 levels, and fully 60 percent below the authorized 
level of $900 million for both the Federal and stateside portions!
  This direction reverses years of progress in increasing the funding 
we need to protect our dwindling natural resources. And unfortunately, 
the funding levels approved by the House are even more abysmal.
  Today, there is a $10 billion backlog in needed Federal acquisitions, 
and billions of dollars in unmet needs at the State and local levels.
  This is certainly contrary to the spirit of another Republican 
president, Theodore Roosevelt, who during his time in the White House 
had the vision to protect 230 million acres of land.
  Today, those lands are enjoyed by hikers, vacationing families, 
hunters, and many others.
  Between 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration increased funding 
for the LWCF by 35 percent. President Clinton understood how vital 
these programs are to preserving our American heritage.
  This year the U.S. Forest Service reported that even with all of our 
land conservation programs, in one decade between 1990 and 2000--our 
Nation's urban and suburban areas grew in size by an astonishing 25 
percent!
  This growth has been at the cost of lost forest and farmland all 
across the Nation and it poses a significant threat to the integrity of 
these valuable lands.
  Forest lands that are intact supply timber products, wildlife 
habitat, soil and watershed protection, and recreation. But when these 
areas fragment and disappear, so do the benefits they provide.
  Many local governments work hard to guide development away from the 
most sensitive areas through zoning and other measures.
  But in New Jersey, and many other States, these measures are simply 
not enough to fully protect our forests and open spaces.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation and we 
understand that over-development endangers our water supplies and 
places severe pressure on all our environmental amenities.
  Forest Legacy and the Land to Parks Program are examples of the 
Federal Government at its best--working in partnership with States and 
local governments to protect environmentally sensitive lands.
  These programs are entirely voluntary. No landowner is required or 
pressured to participate.
  Forest Legacy encourages the protection of privately owned forest 
lands and helps States develop and carry out their own forest 
conservation plans.
  Aldo Leopold said, ``Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger 
values to the Nation's character and health than they will to its 
pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are 
the only values that interest us.''
  I don't believe that is true for Americans, and I don't believe that 
is true for my colleagues in this body.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate and especially those who will 
represent this body in the conference committee to support the highest 
levels possible for our land acquisition programs.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1391, the FY 2004 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, as reported by the 
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
  I commend the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member for 
bringing the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the 
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and consistent with the discretionary 
spending cap for 2004.
  The pending bill provides $19.6 billion in discretionary budget 
authority and $19.4 billion in discretionary outlays in FY 2004 for the 
Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, Energy conservation and 
research, the Smithsonian and the National Endowment for the Arts, and 
National Endowment for Humanities.
  The bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget 
authority

[[Page S11826]]

and $4 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill 
provides $155 million or .8 percent more in discretionary budget 
authority and $1.0 billion or 5.6 percent more in discretionary outlays 
than last year's bill. The bill provides $72 million more in 
discretionary budget authority and $93 million more in discretionary 
outlays than the President's budget request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record. I urge 
the adoption of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  S. 1391, INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS, 2004--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal year 2004, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        General
                                        purpose    Mandatory     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority................     19,627          64      19,691
    Outlays.........................     19,359          70      19,429
Senate Committee allocation:
    Budget authority................     19,627          64      19,691
    Outlays.........................     19,363          70      19,433
2003 level:
    Budget authority................     19,472          64      19,536
    Outlays.........................     18,340          73      18,413
President's request:
    Budget authority................     19,555          64      19,619
    Outlays.........................     19,266          70      19,336
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority................     19,627          64      19,691
    Outlays.........................     19,393          70      19,463
Senate Reported bill compared to:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority............  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Outlays.....................         (4)  ..........         (4)
    2003 level:
        Budget authority............        155   ..........        155
        Outlays.....................      1,019          (3)      1,016
    President's request:
        Budget authority............         72   ..........         72
        Outlays.....................         93   ..........         93
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority............  ..........  ..........  ..........
        Outlays.....................        (34)  ..........        (34)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the Interior appropriations 
bill move to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  If there are no further amendments, the question is on the 
engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the passage of 
the bill, as amended.
  The bill (H.R. 2691), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Talent) appointed Mr. Burns, Mr. Stevens, 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
Brownback, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, 
Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Mikulski conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________