[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8656-S8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
continue with the consideration of H.R. 5093, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5093) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:15 
will be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of 
the subcommittee or their designees prior to a vote on the cloture 
motion on the Byrd amendment No. 4480.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Byrd and Senator Burns are not 
here. The Chair has already decreed that we will divide the time. But 
there have been a number of people waiting: Senator Crapo, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Craig. Just for expedition purposes, if they would 
like to speak now, that is fine. We would wait until they finish. I do 
not know in what order they wish to go, so why don't we announce that 
so people aren't waiting around.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time are we going to have?
  Mr. REID. Half of 40 minutes, 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If you want to let Senator Crapo go first?
  Mr. CRAIG. That will be fine.
  Mr. REID. May we have an order?
  You are going to use your time probably, now, and then a little over 
here or what do you want to do?
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, Senator Reid, I assume we would retain 
the last 5 minutes for closing purposes.
  Mr. REID. Because it is your amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes, because it is our amendment. We would want that.
  Mr. REID. That is really no problem. It is our cloture motion, but if 
you want the last 5 minutes, that is fine. So we ask that consent. In 
the meantime, you use whatever time you need. So you have 15 minutes 
now.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the Senator from Idaho 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise in support of the efforts to 
address the serious and devastating impacts of fires that are currently 
raging throughout the West and to impress upon my colleagues the need 
for immediate action to reduce this threat in the future.
  I thank my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, for his tireless 
efforts to try to find a path forward on a collaborative basis and to 
build the consensus necessary to address this difficult issue. The 
Senator from New Mexico as well has been very closely involved in 
developing these proposals. I commend him for his efforts.
  As I begin, I offer my gratitude to the brave men and women who are 
fighting these fires. Wildland firefighting is a dangerous and 
exhausting job, and I can't thank them enough for their efforts. 
Already this year, 6.3 million acres have been burned, and this level 
of destruction puts us on pace to meet the catastrophic fire season of 
2000, when 8.4 million acres burned, with more than a million of those 
acres in Idaho.
  Idaho has been relatively lucky this year. However, with outbreaks of 
Douglas fir beetles and mountain pine beetles throughout Idaho, it is 
clear we are poised for another dangerous fire season.
  Not all fire is bad. In fact, fire can be beneficial. However, many 
of the fires we face today are fueled by unnatural fuels and burn with 
an intensity and size that makes them undesirable in our natural 
ecology. Additionally, insect and disease outbreaks are often naturally 
occurring agents of change, yet some outbreaks are enhanced by our past 
actions and inactions and occur in scopes that are damaging and 
unnatural.
  As a result of the previous fire seasons, Congress acted with an 
immediate and bipartisan response.
  We came forward with funding and direction for a national fire plan. 
Yet, to date, this plan has not been implemented effectively enough to 
address the risks facing our communities.
  I do not think we should be pointing fingers or making excuses about 
why or how these fires occurred. We need to look forward and address 
the problem. We need to do so quickly. I do not want to see another 
million acres burning in Idaho next year.
  In his Healthy Forests Initiative, the President outlined actions 
that will effectively address the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In 
the Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, our majority 
leader identified a way to effectively reduce the risks in the Black 
Hills National Forest. Clearly, we all want to protect our forests.
  Our forests are an important part of our heritage and have great 
impacts on local economies and recreational opportunities for local 
residents and visitors alike. They provide our drinking water and 
wildlife habitat. In short, healthy forests are vital to all Americans.
  The Forest Service has identified 70 million acres of Condition Class 
III lands. These lands are at catastrophic risk of wildfire and subject 
to insect and disease infestations, windthrow, and other health risks. 
It is important to address risks on these lands, but it must be noted 
that today we are not debating action in all of these areas.
  As I said, many of these threats are natural and we may choose to let 
them occur naturally. However, we must act--and act quickly--to protect 
our high value forest areas. We must act to protect homes, property, 
and livelihood, maintain the quality of our watersheds, and take steps 
to ensure that burned areas are quickly rehabilitated rather than face 
the dangerous risks of reburn.
  Again, the amendments we are discussing do not include the entire 196 
million acre National Forest System or 74.5 million acres of condition 
class III areas, but instead address areas where we cannot allow 
endless delays. We do so without eliminating public recourse. There has 
also been speculation the language will do what Senator Daschle did and 
limit all appeals and judicial review. This is not true.
  Critics also contend the amendment suspends environmental laws. That 
is also false. The amendment requires that projects be consistent with 
the applicable forest plans or resource management plans. I can tell 
you from experience that these site-specific plans take years of work 
with widespread public involvement and compliance with all of our 
environmental laws.
  Protecting our environment and the opportunity for public involvement 
is a vital part of any actions on our public lands. Reducing the risk 
of fire is no exception. However, the imminent threat demands we act 
quickly and move past stalling tactics and countless delays.
  Damage to our environment from these fires is acute. The harm to 
local economies is felt in many ways. It is clear our forests have 
deteriorated to the point were active management is a necessity. I hope 
my colleagues recognize that and will support the efforts of member's 
whose goal is to protect their communities and environment.
  I encourage all of the Senators to vote against the cloture motion.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his 
very thoughtful presentation and his true expression of the real 
conditions on our forest lands.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, 
who has spoken to the broader issue of the problem we face, and the 
firefighters. And Senator Crapo elaborated on that some.
  Let me speak for a moment about why I support the Craig-Domenici 
amendment from a local standpoint. It certainly provides a critical 
tool in doing the job that we know needs to be done. We know there are 
counterproposals floating around. From my perspective, that does not 
accomplish what we need to have done.
  Let me speak a couple of minutes about what happened near the town of 
Durango, CO. I live about 18 miles from

[[Page S8657]]

there. In fact, during the Missionary Ridge fire, we watched it with 
great anticipation from our porch at our ranch.
  Durango is a very scenic town in Colorado, home of one of only 13 
gold medal trout streams in the whole country, and has some of the 
finest mountain biking areas in the West.
  Two months ago, there was a fire called the Missionary Ridge fire, 
declared under control on July 28, but only after we had lost over 
70,000 acres of forest, 56 homes, 27 adjoining buildings, and the 
collective cost of $40.6 million to fight that fire. More importantly, 
large areas around the Lemon and Vallecito Reservoirs burned so 
intensely that the soil had become hydrophobic and unable to keep water 
back. Downstream, the La Plata, Aimas, Los Pinos, and Florida Rivers 
were now all at risk.
  When I was home this past weekend, I was reading in the local 
newspaper about several homes that were washed off their foundations by 
the mud slides as a result of that loose soil caused by the fire and 
the burning of all of the underbrush and trees.
  That $40.6 million lost, to put it in context, is more than double 
the amount of funding allocated for recreation for all of the 11 
forests in Region II, which is Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, and 
Nebraska. It is four times the amount of funding for wildlife for all 
11 forests in Region II for fiscal year 2002. It is nearly double the 
amount of money allocated to the region for hazardous fuels reduction 
work for fiscal year 2002. So in a little over 1\1/2\ months, we spent 
more allowing that area to be destroyed by fire than we would have 
spent on wildlife habitat management on all 11 forests over 4 years.
  Speaking of wildlife, when the Missionary Ridge fire was at its 
highest level of intensity, I happened to have a chance to talk to one 
of the firefighters who had been on the front line. He told me he 
estimated the fire to be moving at about 50 miles an hour--literally 
out of control--and actually saw birds being burned out of the sky 
because they were unable to outfly that fire, and that a number of 
small animals literally burned alive because they could not outrun that 
fire. There are just terrible stories about what happened.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some excerpts 
of stories in the local newspapers in Durango of September 8, 10, 13, 
and 14.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           september 8, 2002

       The Valley Fire began on June 25th and quickly consumed 10 
     homes and 378 acres, about 160 acres were burned on private 
     land.
       Fall Creek Ranch residents hired a logging company to help 
     remove logs and place other logs around areas where waters 
     tend to flow heavily. The residents have poured $26,000 into 
     mitigation so far.
       Just under an inch of rain in less than an hour created mud 
     and water flows that cover Florida Road, County Road 501, and 
     County Road 245. About 700 customers at the Bar D Chuckwagon 
     restaurant were trapped until about 10 p.m.


                           september 10, 2002

       The City of Durango's turbidity went from 2 NTU's (a 
     measure of the number of small particles that are suspended 
     in a water sample) or practically colorless, on Friday, to 
     440 NTU's, a chocolate brown by Monday.
       A waive of ash, mud and debris cascaded down from 
     Missionary Ridge burn area late Wednesday, flooding fields 
     and roads and temporarily stranded some residents north and 
     east of Durango.


                           september 13, 2002

       Only about a quarter-inch of rain fell, but it was enough 
     to close roads, flood houses and clog culverts.
       LaPine County has spend about $100,000 keeping roads and 
     drainage structures clear of mudslides.
       ``There are homes out there that never expected to be 
     influenced by flooding that are getting a hell of a 
     surprise,'' said Doyle Viller La Plata County director of 
     road maintenance.
       Dead fish are littering the banks of the Animas River after 
     recent mudslides in the Animas Valley, and there could be 
     hundreds more beneath the murky water.
       The mud is so thick that they (the fish) can't breath in 
     the water said Mike Japhet, State of Colorado Division of 
     Wildlife.
       He received one report that the fish were ``gasping for air 
     and trying to swim out of the water onto the bank'' near 32nd 
     Street in Durango on Sunday.
       All the fish around the 32nd Street Bridge, appear to be 
     dead, Japhet said, and the death zone could extend north for 
     several miles to where the mud entered the water.


                           september 14, 2002

       The county estimates that more than $100,000 has been spent 
     on clearing roads and ditches near Lemon and Vallecito 
     Reservoirs, and there has been more than $1 million in 
     personal property damage from flash flooding.


  october 2002 bicycling magazine article--russell zimmerman, durango 
                           bicycle shop owner

       ``The last time I rode here, the forest was so dense you 
     could see no more than 100 feet ahead. There is nothing left 
     today, no living thing within a mile to interrupt the barren 
     landscape. No fallen trees, no bushes, no grass.
       ``The bottom of my wheels disappear into the three-inch-
     deep layer of ash. The route is the same, but the trail is 
     different. Roots are gone, burned away. Some of the rocks 
     have even been vaporized.''
       ``My tires kick up a fine dust that covers the bike, and 
     me. No one could follow me; they'd choke.'' Before the fire, 
     I'd spot a porcupine every ride. Or a deer, or elk or bear. 
     Not this time.''

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, the result now, of course, is that on 
the Animas River, which goes through the town of Durango, dead fish are 
littering the banks because so much mud has come into the water.
  Mike Japhet of the Colorado Division of Wildlife said that in some 
places fish are actually trying to get out of the water because they 
cannot breath. He received one report that fish were actually ``gasping 
for air'' as they tried to stay alive.
  The local county has spent over $100,000 just clearing mud from roads 
and ditches near the Lemon and Vallecito Reservoirs that were affected 
by this fire.
  I want to add my voice to the Craig-Domenici amendment. I just want 
to point out from a local point of view the catastrophic results.
  Our little town of Durango in fact relies heavily on tourism. An old 
train takes tourists through the mountains. They had 28,000 
cancellations in just 2 weeks because of that fire. Those 
cancellations, of course, result in money lost to the local community. 
The estimated loss of revenue during the month after that fire in the 
town of Durango was estimated to be about 40 percent from the normal 
resources they would have been able to rely on from tourists who stay 
in motels and who eat in the restaurants.
  The facts are clear: unnaturally dense forests result in unnaturally 
hot burning and fast moving fires, like we experienced in Colorado.
  Our proposal would address the problem in a balanced way--even 
providing greater review of projects than the majority leader's plan 
that takes care of his own state that he managed to attach to the 
emergency supplemental bill.
  We know what needs to be done, but now opponents are opposing our 
bill and offering counterproposals that will do absolutely nothing to 
help forest managers thin these forests to reduce the risk of these 
catastrophic fires, nor allow for any salvage operations to help pay 
for the rehabilitation of these areas.
  What does the counterproposal do? Their proposal does nothing more 
than sell the public a false bag of goods--it does nothing but create 
false expectations in the public.
  My state of Colorado has experienced enough from prior bad policies. 
I am offended that some would now suggest new ones.
  Since my friends on the other side know what needs to be done, why 
are they proposing such ineffective policy?
  Because we are in an election year and some politically-active 
environmental groups are drafting the policy. It is not a secret. They 
say there is a lot of campaign money at stake--television and radio ads 
that could be poured into your State if you oppose doing the right 
thing.
  It is time to do the right thing. It is time for these environmental 
groups to start looking at policies that benefit the environment rather 
than maintaining the political hammerlock they have on the Forest 
Service and BLM.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished

[[Page S8658]]

Senator on our side, and then I will be glad to offer the remainder to 
Senator Byrd.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, that wouldn't give the Senator the last 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, I come today to the 
floor because there is a very important amendment that is attached to 
the Interior appropriations bill, and it is a second-degree amendment 
attached to the Byrd amendment.
  The only thing I would like to say today, since cloture has been 
called for on the Byrd amendment, is that if in fact cloture is 
invoked, our amendment will disappear. We believe our amendment is a 
good amendment and it deserves an up-or-down vote.
  We have not been delaying things. We have been waiting for an 
opportunity to have a vote. We would like an up-or-down vote on our 
amendment, which is an effort by a number of Senators on both sides of 
the aisle to permit the Forest Service and the BLM of the United States 
to go into our forest lands that desperately need cleanup and to look 
at just four types of properties that belong to our Federal 
Government: those that have blown over and are there, and where they 
are unable to do anything--the trees are, in fact, dormant--forests 
that have been bitten and eaten so that the bugs have infested them, so 
they are useless, but we leave them there instead of removing them, and 
removing all of the substance that is there with them. And there are 
two other kinds similar to that, and we address them.

  All we try to do is say: Can't we expedite the removal of that 
substance I have just described which causes fires? Because once any of 
that starts, you cannot stop it, and it goes like wildfire. And since 
our forests are not maintained properly, it burns thousands and, in 
some instances--like this year--millions of acres.
  As I see it, it is time we do something practical. Our amendment is 
commonsense cleanup for the forests that are being destroyed. I do not 
believe the amendment--that will be offered later on, if we lose--does 
that in a proper manner. I believe it makes it just as difficult, if 
not more difficult, to remove this kindling, this buildup that is 
permitting our forests to burn.
  We are not delaying any bill. We are asking for a chance to vote. 
Whenever it is possible in the Senate, we want a vote. That is all we 
ask. We will have more time then to explain it in detail.
  It is common sense. It is not anti-environment. It is a rational, 
reasonable way to clean four kinds of forests that none of us would 
like to leave in their current situation so that they will become the 
essence of the next firestorms of the West.
  If I have not used all my time, I yield the remainder of it to 
Senator Craig for his allocation or use. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. How much of that time--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry, 19 minutes remain for the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, the underlying first-degree amendment, which is the 
subject of the cloture vote this afternoon, provides $825 million in 
emergency funds to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management. That money will be used to repay the extraordinary fire 
suppression costs incurred by those agencies over the past several 
months.
  As many of our colleagues know, particularly those who represent 
Western States, 2002 is turning out to be one of the most devastating 
fire seasons on record. Over the past 10 years, the average number of 
acres burned by fire between January 1 and September 16 has been 3.4 
million acres. This year, however, the comparable number of acres 
burned is 6.4 million; almost twice the 10-year average.
  But this problem is much more than just the numbers of acres burned. 
The devastation and destruction resulting from these fires is almost 
too much to comprehend. Fire suppression costs will exceed $1.5 
billion. Nearly 3,000 structures have been destroyed, including 1,313 
homes. And, most tragic of all, 21 citizens have lost their lives 
fighting these treacherous fires.
  Clearly, Madam President, this situation amounts to a domestic 
emergency of historic proportions.
  That is why Senator Burns and I proposed this amendment and why so 
many of our colleagues have joined us in this endeavor. Indeed, even 
the President has come to appreciate the need for this assistance, as 
evidenced by his August 28 funding request to Congress.
  Madam President, it is of the utmost importance that we move forward 
on this matter, and that we do so in a timely manner. In fact, I would 
remind my colleagues that the authority to designate such funds as an 
emergency expires on September 30. Consequently, if this bill is not 
signed into law by the end of the month, there is a very real 
possibility that these funds will not be made available. I urge my 
colleagues to support the cloture motion, and help us in our effort to 
help our firefighters.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  How much time does the distinguished Senator from North Dakota wish?
  Mr. CONRAD. Five minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I understand certain comments were made 
about the slowness of the appropriations process and the assertion that 
not having a budget resolution pass the floor is the reason for that.
  I do not think that is supported by the facts. The appropriations 
process is moving slowly for reasons that have no relationship to a 
budget resolution or having one or not having one.
  The fact is, the appropriators agreed to an amount for a budget that 
was what was recommended in the resolution that went through the Budget 
Committee. The appropriators agreed unanimously--Democrats and 
Republicans--to adopt the budget amount for this year that the 
committee recommended.
  So there is nothing to prevent appropriations bills from coming to 
the floor in an orderly process. The appropriators gave to each of the 
committees an allocation that added up to the amount of money that was 
provided for in the recommendation by the Budget Committee. So that is 
not the problem here.
  No. 2, I think it should be pointed out that we had an opportunity on 
the floor to pass a budget for this year and got 59 votes. We got 59 
votes. Now, it required 60 votes. But we had a bipartisan supermajority 
in the Senate for a budget amount for this year--not a budget 
resolution but a budget amount for this year. We fell one vote short of 
getting that amount approved.
  Frankly, all of this misses the larger point. The reason we are in 
deep financial trouble now has nothing to do with the budget resolution 
for this year at all. The real problem is the budget resolution that 
passed last year. The budget resolution that passed last year put us on 
the course of a 10-year plan that has contributed to the most dramatic 
reversal in our fiscal fortunes in our Nation's history.
  It was the budget resolution that passed last year that contained a 
massive and unaffordable tax cut that has undermined the fiscal 
strength of this country for years to come.
  Last year, we were told we would have $5.6 trillion of budget surplus 
over the next decade--$5.6 trillion. Now, if we look at the 
Congressional Budget Office's new report, what we see is no surpluses; 
the money is all gone.
  If we just adopt the President's recommendation on spending and taxes 
for the next 10 years--no additional spending by Congress, not a dime--
if we just adopt his proposals, we will be $400 billion in the red. 
That is after being told last year we had $5.6 trillion of surpluses 
over the next decade. Now we are $400 billion in the hole. That is a $6 
trillion turn.
  And what are the reasons for it? The No. 1 reason is the tax cuts 
that were in last year's budget, pushed by the President, passed by the 
Congress. That accounts for over a third of the disappearance of the 
surplus.
  The next biggest reason: technical considerations that apply to 
revenue not meeting the estimates. That is the second biggest reason--
not related to

[[Page S8659]]

the tax cut, but it is the second biggest reason.
  The third biggest reason is the increased costs because of the attack 
on the United States.
  I am talking now about, over the 10 years of the President's budget 
plan, what are the contributing factors to the disappearance of the 
surplus. The biggest reason--over a third--is the tax cut, 34 percent. 
The second biggest reason: revenue not meeting expectations, apart from 
the tax cut; that is 29 percent. Twenty-two percent is increased costs 
associated with the attack on the country. And the last, and smallest, 
part of the problem is the economic slowdown, representing 14 or 15 
percent of the disappearance of the surplus.
  That is the reality. The appropriations process not moving forward 
has nothing to do with the budget resolution being passed or not 
passed. The simple fact is, the appropriators agreed to the amount that 
was in the budget proposal that passed the Budget Committee. They did 
so on a unanimous basis, and they proceeded to stay within that amount. 
That is the reality.
  The bigger truth, the larger reality is that we have fiscal problems 
because of the budget that passed last year. That put us on a course 
that does not add up, never has added up, and will require serious work 
in the future, if we are going to get back on track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have the 5 remaining minutes prior to the 
vote reserved. We have no more time to allocate on our side. The 
assistant leader said we could use time if there were no speakers from 
the other side. Senator Byrd is here.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator want more than 5 minutes? 
Do you need more?
  Mr. CRAIG. I think our colleague from Oklahoma would like to speak 
for 5, and then if I could use 5 to close it out, then we could advance 
the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. It is fine with me if the Senator closes. The Senator wants 
5 minutes over there. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. BURNS. Two. That is all I need.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member and I will yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished Senator. I am always very accommodating, 
most always, to Senators from the other side of the aisle. Then will I 
have any more time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator yields 10 minutes, that would 
exhaust his time.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I won't need it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from West 
Virginia for his yielding a couple minutes. I will be brief.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. I say that knowing my 
friend and colleague from West Virginia, I guess, is going to support 
it. But he is chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I have been on 
the committee. I have been in the Senate for a long time. It is a very 
bad idea to start filing cloture on any amendment that you don't like 
on appropriations bills. It is a bad idea for a couple reasons. One, it 
won't work. You are not going to be able to take a cloture vote and 
say, ``We will have a fire amendment and it is going to spend several 
hundred million dollars on fire, but we will not have any other 
amendment dealing with this issue,'' because it won't work.
  The Senator from Idaho is entitled to his amendment. Even if cloture 
is invoked, we can still get a vote on the Senator's amendment, or some 
other Senator can offer a similar amendment.
  I will, first, tell my colleague from West Virginia, I don't like 
cloture. To me, it should be used very sparingly. It is becoming far 
too prevalent in the Senate where somebody says: We will just file 
cloture.
  Someone told me: We will file cloture on homeland security. We will 
wrap that up.
  Of course, that would deny us the opportunity to offer the 
President's bill on homeland security. They may file it, but they will 
not get cloture. The President is entitled to have a vote on his 
homeland security proposal, and we are going to get it, just as the 
Senator from Idaho is entitled to have his vote on fire control. Other 
Senators have ideas.
  My point is, you can waste days on cloture. We wasted 3 days. No one 
on this side of the aisle was filibustering the Interior bill or 
filibustering homeland security, nor should they, in my opinion. I hope 
we don't have filibusters ever, frankly, on appropriations bills. We 
need to decide how much we are going to spend and how we will do it.
  Maybe if somebody came up with an amendment that is so offensive, so 
intrusive, so anti an individual State that they would filibuster, that 
might be unique, but I haven't found that yet in my Senate career on an 
appropriations bill. I can't remember filibusters on appropriations 
bills. I have only been here 22 years--not nearly as long as my friend 
from West Virginia. It is a terrible idea if somebody says: I don't 
like that amendment so we will file cloture on it and hope it goes 
away. If cloture is adopted, the Craig-Domenici amendment will 
disappear.
  I am telling my colleagues, it will not disappear, even if cloture is 
invoked. And if it is, I might tell my friends, we could spread out, we 
could waste another couple days. I don't think anybody wants to do that 
because we have no interest in filibustering anything.
  My colleague from New Mexico is a very good legislator, and he has a 
couple ideas on fire management, and so does my colleague from Idaho. I 
know the other Senator from Idaho and other Senators have ideas, and 
they are entitled to have their amendments considered. And they will be 
considered at some point.
  I urge my colleagues, let's not get in the habit of going the route 
of cloture if an amendment appears and we say we don't really like it. 
That process will not work. We only have a week from Monday to complete 
action on the appropriations bills, if we are going to have them done 
by the end of the fiscal year. That is only 13 days. We have already 
spent a week and a half on the Interior bill and we are not even 
getting close.
  We have basically had an amendment on drought, and we were precluded 
from offering another drought amendment. And now we have a fire 
amendment, appropriating money for fire, and my colleague is trying to 
be denied a vote.
  This side is going to find a way to get some votes on this bill. We 
can spend weeks doing it or we can spend days. We can spend an hour. I 
heard my colleague from Idaho said he is willing to have a time limit. 
He is willing to have a side by side. I know the Senator from New 
Mexico has a fire amendment. Great. Senator Bingaman, I think, that is 
a different fire amendment, and I think that is fine. Let's vote on 
those amendments.
  I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia yielding. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair. I thank my chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time does he have? How much time is 
left on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4 minutes 20 
seconds; the Senator from Idaho, 4 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. BURNS. I will take the first 4 minutes. I thank my good friend 
from West Virginia also for allocating the time.
  As he believes very much in the Constitution of the United States, I 
also believe in some of the rulings of the Senate. And I think I would 
be remiss as ranking member on this committee and a comanager on this 
bill if I did not fight for the rights of the rest of the Members in 
this body to have a vote. I think it is what it is all about. That is 
for debate.
  I haven't heard anybody come down here and talk against the merits of 
this second-degree amendment. It will not go away. And silence tells me 
that maybe the case has already been made and hard to defend of what we 
are trying to do as far as forest health is concerned. Twenty years, 25 
years is a track record, a known track record.

[[Page S8660]]

And now we see the culmination of those management practices over that 
many years in the growth of the forest and what it can lead to if we 
allow folks who probably don't have all the experience in the world, on 
the ground management of a renewable resource, what that brings us to.
  So I would hope that we would support cloture or deny cloture so this 
issue can be talked out because it will not go away. I am not real sure 
it is not the shortest way to arrive at a vote and settlement of the 
issue.
  I thank my good friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why do we want to vote down cloture? There 
are other appropriations bills coming to the floor. I am supporting the 
Senator's amendment. I never said a word against his amendment. I would 
be very supportive of it. I am not filibustering it, and I haven't 
filibustered anything else. I haven't filibustered the homeland 
security bill, either. I have heard some intimations this afternoon 
that I have filibustered. My Lord, some people around here wouldn't 
recognize a filibuster if they met it on the way home. I know what a 
filibuster is. But I am not against this amendment. Why would we want 
to vote against this cloture?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong. If cloture is invoked, the 
amendment of our friend from Idaho would no longer be germane and it 
would fall. We would like our colleague to have the right to offer his 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are other appropriations bills coming. 
Why not vote for this bill and do some of the good things that are 
being done with this bill, and the Senator can come back another day 
with his amendment? I am not opposed to his amendment. Why do we want 
to penalize other parts of the country and other Senators for good 
things that are in the bill because some Senators don't want to vote 
for cloture on this?
  This is an appropriations bill. Those advocating voting against 
cloture, in many instances, are Senators who are on the Appropriations 
Committee. Why? We need to get on with this. Let's vote cloture on this 
and the Senator will have another day, another opportunity on another 
appropriations bill.
  I am for his amendment. I think he has made a good statement in 
support of it. I cannot understand why we want to cut off our nose to 
spite our face on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a 
couple final remarks before I leave the floor for another event I need 
to attend.
  The Senator from West Virginia just now said it so well. There is an 
ongoing filibuster on this amendment, but not on this side. It is not 
on this side. There is no question that, on controversial issues, this 
Senate must acquire 60 votes to pass an amendment. The Senator from 
Idaho has offered an amendment that does not have the requisite 60 
votes. The Senator from New Mexico and others on our side have offered 
an alternative that we acknowledge does not have 60 votes. Over the 
course of the last several weeks, we have attempted to find common 
ground and, at least to date, have failed. In fact, I recall vividly 
last week on the floor the Senator from Idaho indicated they were going 
to make another effort yesterday to attempt to reach that common 
ground. That has not happened.
  So it is fair to say that both sides have failed to reach the Senate 
requisite for controversial amendments, which is 60 votes. We had 
offered a procedural compromise since we could not find a substantive 
one. That compromise would be to have side-by-side votes, to indicate 
that there is support, but not the level of support required under 
Senate rules. That, too, failed.
  So the bottom line is that we have an amendment pending that 1 week 
ago today generated 79 votes; 79 people went on record--Republican and 
Democrat--supporting drought assistance on an amendment that supports 
firefighting assistance. The President and others have said the 
firefighting money is urgent. I would like to reread the speeches made 
last week about the urgency of getting something done on drought 
assistance, about how important it is to get out there and provide this 
help now.
  Well, in the next 5 minutes we will have a chance to provide this 
help now. The Senator from Idaho is not precluded from reoffering this 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. He can do that. So to 
say it is now or never for them is just not correct. There is nothing 
to preclude them from going back and offering this amendment to the 
underlying bill--nothing. So if they vote against cloture, they are 
voting against firefighting assistance, against drought assistance, and 
there can be no other conclusion.
  Don't tell me you have to do it on this amendment or you cannot do it 
at all. That is not right. So let's get real and be honest here. There 
is a game being played here that I think ought to be shown for what it 
is--a game that, for whatever reason, is denying this amendment passage 
today, even though the debate and consultation and the continued 
cooperative effort to see if common ground can be achieved. I just 
talked, moments ago, to Senator Bingaman. He said he has another 
meeting scheduled--I think it is this afternoon--with Senators on both 
sides of the aisle to see if they can reach common ground. If they can, 
it can be offered to the bill.
  For the life of me, I don't understand why anybody can say, on one 
hand, how urgent it is to get firefighter assistance, drought 
assistance--by the way, I ask unanimous consent that the votes of those 
Senators who supported that amendment a week ago be printed in the 
Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     U.S. Senate Rollcall Votes, 107th Congress--2nd Session (2002)

  (As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the 
               direction of the Secretary of the Senate)


                              Vote Summary

       Vote Number: 212.
       Vote Date: September 10, 2002, 10:45 a.m.
       Question: On the Motion (Motion to Wave CBA RE: Daschle 
     Amdt. No. 4481).
       Required for Majority: \3/5\.
       Vote Result: Motion Agreed to.
       Amendment Number: S. Amdt. 4481.
       Statement of Purpose: To provide emergency disaster 
     assistance to agricultural producers.
       Vote Counts: Yeas 79; Nays 16; Not Voting 5.


                      Alphabetical by Senator Name

     Akaka (D-HI), Not Voting
     Allard (R-CO), Yea
     Allen (R-VA), Yea
     Baucus (D-MT), Yea
     Bayh (D-IN), Yea
     Bennett (R-UT), Yea
     Biden (D-DE), Yea
     Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
     Bond (R-MO), Yea
     Boxer (D-CA), Yea
     Breaux (D-LA), Yea
     Brownback (R-KS), Yea
     Bunning (R-KY), Yea
     Burns (R-MT), Yea
     Byrd (D-WV), Yea
     Campbell (R-CO), Yea
     Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
     Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
     Carper (D-DE), Yea
     Chafee (R-RI), Nay
     Cleland (D-GA), Yea
     Clinton (D-NY), Yea
     Cochran (R-MS), Yea
     Collins (R-ME), Yea
     Conrad (D-ND), Yea
     Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
     Craig (R-ID), Yea
     Crapo (R-ID), Yea
     Daschle (D-SD), Yea
     Dayton (D-MN), Yea
     DeWine (R-OH), Yea
     Dodd (D-CT), Yea
     Domenici (R-NM), Yea
     Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
     Durbin (D-IL), Yea
     Edwards (D-NC), Yea
     Ensign (R-NV), Nay
     Enzi (R-WY), Yea
     Feingold (D-WI), Nay
     Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
     Fitzgerald (R-IL), Nay
     Frist (R-TN), Nay
     Graham (D-FL), Yea
     Gramm (R-TX), Nay
     Grassley (R-IA), Yea
     Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting
     Hagel (R-NE), Yea
     Harkin (D-IA), Yea
     Hatch (R-UT), Yea
     Helms (R-NC), Not Voting
     Hollings (D-SC), Yea
     Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
     Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
     Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
     Inouye (D-HI), Yea
     Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
     Johnson (D-SD), Yea
     Kennedy (D-MA), Yea

[[Page S8661]]

     Kerry (D-MA), Yea
     Kohl (D-WI), Yea
     Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
     Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
     Leahy (D-VT), Yea
     Levin (D-MI), Yea
     Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
     Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
     Lott (R-MS), Nay
     Lugar (R-IN), Nay
     McCain (R-AZ), Yea
     McConnell (R-KY), Yea
     Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
     Miller (D-GA), Yea
     Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
     Murray (D-WA), Yea
     Nelson (D-FL), Yea
     Nelson (D-NE), Yea
     Nickles (R-OK), Nay
     Reed (D-RI), Yea
     Reid (D-NV), Yea
     Roberts (R-KS), Yea
     Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
     Santorum (R-PA), Nay
     Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
     Schumer (D-NY), Yea
     Sessions (R-AL), Nay
     Shelby (R-AL), Nay
     Smith (R-NH), Not Voting
     Smith (R-OR), Yea
     Snowe (R-ME), Nay
     Specter (R-PA), Yea
     Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
     Stevens (R-AK), Yea
     Thomas (R-WY), Yea
     Thompson (R-TN), Nay
     Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
     Torricelli (D-NJ), Not Voting
     Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
     Warner (R-VA), Yea
     Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
     Wyden (D-OR), Yea
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there can be no doubt. If we are serious 
about moving this legislation forward and providing this assistance, we 
take care of this amendment and move on to other issues. We have been 
on this bill now for 3 weeks. We will be on it for another couple 
weeks, the way it looks. There comes a time when we just have to move 
on and when we have to recognize that, under Senate rules, we either 
have to accommodate the rules, or reach some compromise, or drop the 
amendment. We have those three options.
  We cannot accommodate the rules today because neither side has 60 
votes. Let's recognize it for what it is. This is a delay. Until we get 
over this delay, we cannot provide the kind of assistance to 
firefighters and farmers and ranchers that is absolutely critical 
across the country. And the very speeches we made last week are just as 
real and important and urgent today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the life of me, I must tell the 
majority leader, I cannot understand what you speak of. There has been 
no filibuster on this bill, and a second-degree amendment is not 
extraordinary nor does it require 60 votes. You know the rules as well 
as I do. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee just came to the 
floor and made the right speech, talking about the urgency of his 
amendment and firefighting money. I support it totally.
  If we don't deal with his amendment and deal with my amendment in 
concept as a new public policy for this country, he as chairman, or 
another chairman, will be coming to the floor every year and asking for 
$1.5 billion to $2 billion of taxpayer money to fight the wildfires of 
the West, across the Alleghenies, and down to the Blue Ridge. That is 
the reality of a misguided public policy that has put our national 
treasures at risk, the U.S. forestlands.
  This year, we burned over 6.5 million acres; the chairman spoke to 
that. We lost 2,100 homes; the chairman spoke to that. We lost 21 
lives; the chairman spoke to that, too. This is a tactic to stall? Not 
at all. No, the majority leader, in my opinion, misspoke. There has 
been no filibuster. I have kept him and the assistant leader in full 
consultation as we have tried to resolve and bring, in a bipartisan 
way, a clear new adjustment in public policy. We cannot arrive at that. 
It is my amendment that is now up as a second degree, and appropriately 
so.
  I ask for a vote on it, an up-or-down vote, as it is entitled to. I 
would accept a side-by-side debate with Senator Bingaman's alternative 
but not a 60-vote, no--51 or 50. Majority rules here, except under the 
rules that require a 60 vote. In this instance, it is not required.
  I hope my colleagues will join with us this afternoon and say no to 
cloture, and maybe then we can move expeditiously because we have lost 
days when this could have been resolved very quickly.
  I don't blame the Senator from West Virginia for being frustrated. He 
is chairman of the Interior Subcommittee. He brought a bill to the 
floor that most of us want. The majority leader knows I supported the 
aid to farmers and ranchers that have experienced catastrophic drought. 
It is not my intention, nor anyone else's, to hold up that money. But 
it is our intention, it is our purpose, and we will have a vote, to 
deal with national forest policy that will slightly adjust our ability 
to get active on the land, to remove the fuel, to improve the forest 
health, to save the watershed, to save the wildlife habitat, and, also, 
to save homes and people's lives and the beautiful landscapes of the 
public forests of these United States.
  Shame on us for failing to address a policy that, this year, has 
allowed the burning of 6.5 million acres of public land, and the fires 
will continue year after year into the future until the public stands 
up and says: Congress, United States Senate, change your ways. Your 
policy isn't working. Your policy is not working, and our forests are 
burning and our forests are being lost because of public policy.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to respond to a question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, did I hear the 
majority leader say that if we lose and we are knocked down by cloture, 
we can offer this legislation later?
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator did hear that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder how we could be delaying the bill then.
  Mr. CRAIG. We are not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How could we be delaying it? If we have a chance to do 
it later, wouldn't we be delaying it then, too?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is not our intention to delay. We have never intended 
to delay the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield if I have time remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Why won't Senators vote for cloture? There are many other 
needs being addressed by this bill. I have said I will support the 
Senator on another bill later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time required for the cloture vote--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I am trying to salvage a bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Which bill is the Senator referring to, our amendment 
or the big bill?
  Mr. BYRD. Why vote down cloture on this amendment? What is wrong with 
it?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is an amendment properly to the Interior bill. Why 
would we knock it down? It is germane. It is relevant. And put it 
where? Where would we put it? The Senator said put it on another bill. 
Where? It is a very important subject matter. It is just as important 
as the burning amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. If they intend to bring it up later, why not vote for 
cloture here? Senators can always bring up something later.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, this is the 
most appropriate bill for it to be on.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course it is, but if you cannot get it on one bill, you 
try on another.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Why does the Senator want us to vote to take it off the 
bill? Those who have worked hard on this issue want it on the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I have not opposed that. I tried to be very understanding 
with the Senator. We cannot have everything the way we want it. I have 
lost a few amendments in my time that were of interest to my part of 
the country, too.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The majority leader is even wrong in saying this 
amendment needs 60 votes. It does not need 60 votes, even with a budget 
resolution. It is just an authorization bill. It is implementing what 
you put in the bill, the $825 million. It is not subject to 60 votes, 
which means--why not have cloture; they both need 60 votes anyway. That 
is not so. Our bill does not need 60 votes, nor does Senator Bingaman's 
amendment need 60 votes. Pure and

[[Page S8662]]

simple: 51 votes on a bill on which they belong. So why would we, who 
have struggled with it, vote to kill it? We want it alive. We want it 
to go to conference with the Senator when we all go to conference.
  Mr. BYRD. Why don't Senators help me get this bill to conference? 
That is what I am asking. Why don't Senators help me get this bill to 
conference?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to help with the Interior bill--both 
bills.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is the only measure in which we are interested. We 
have gotten together for hours in the offices of five different 
Senators because it is important. And then somebody comes along and 
says: Let's have a cloture vote and kill the bill.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Senator Byrd's 
     amendment No. 4480.
         Joseph Lieberman, Harry Reid, Jean Carnahan, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Christopher Dodd, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed, Richard 
           J. Durbin, Kent Conrad, Paul Wellstone, Patrick Leahy, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Byron L. Dorgan, Mark 
           Dayton, Debbie Stabenow, Jim Jeffords, Robert 
           Torricelli.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Byrd amendment No. 4480 to H.R. 5093, the Department of Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, shall be brought to a close? The 
yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Schumer
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked on amendment No. 4480.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly we will dispose of the Lieberman 
and Thompson amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just restate: We will dispose of the 
Lieberman and Thompson amendments. It is my understanding, once that 
has occurred, Senator Byrd will offer his amendment. It is my 
understanding that debate will take place tonight, and of course 
tomorrow.
  With that understanding, there will be no more rollcall votes this 
evening.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition first to thank Senator 
Byrd, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its 
Interior Subcommittee and the Subcommittee Ranking Republican, Senator 
Burns, for their efforts in drafting the fiscal year 2003 spending plan 
for the agencies under their jurisdiction. Also, I want to call 
attention in particular to two competitively awarded initiatives that, 
unfortunately, the annual Department of Energy, DOE, budget submission 
routinely underfunds and expects Congress to correct.
  First, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and its partners, DOE, 
Ceramatec, ChevronTexaco, Eltron Research, McDermott Technology and 
Concepts NREC, are developing a unique, oxygen-producing technology 
based on high-temperature, ion transport membranes, ITM. The 
technology, ITM Oxygen, would be combined with an Integrated 
Gasification Combined Cycle, IGCC, system to produce oxygen and 
electric power for the iron/steel, nonferrous metals, glass, pulp and 
paper, cogeneration, and chemicals and refining industries. The ITM 
Oxygen project is a cornerstone project in DOE's Vision 21 efforts and 
has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of tonnage oxygen 
plants for IGCC systems.
  The DOE fiscal year 2003 cost-share requirement is $6.5 million from 
the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Coal and other Power 
Systems, President's Coal Research Initiative, Advanced Systems budget 
under IGCC, Vision 21. Unfortunately, DOE requested only $3.5 million 
for the ITM Oxygen project. Underfunding ITM Oxygen in fiscal year 2003 
by $3 million would result in a delay of the program, by at least one 
year and I am advised it would add approximately $10 million to the 
program's costs.
  Second, DOE's ITM Syngas program is developing a ceramic membrane 
reactor able to separate oxygen from air and partially oxidize methane 
to produce synthesis gas in a single step. Development of this 
technology will lead to numerous applications including clean 
transportation fuels, hydrogen for fuel cell applications, and chemical 
feedstocks. A critical application is gas-to-liquids, GTL, conversion 
where ITM Syngas technology will significantly improve the overall 
economics of GTL and permit the economical recovery of more than 37 
trillion cubic feet of stranded Alaska North Slope gas.
  Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. is leading a research team 
comprising Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, McDermott 
Technology, Ceramatec, ChevronTexaco, Eltron Research, Norsk Hydro, the 
University of Alaska-Fairbanks, the University of Pennsylvania, and 
Pennsylvania State University.
  The DOE fiscal year 2003 cost share requirement is $5.5 million from 
the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Coal and Other Power 
Systems, President's Coal Research Initiative, Fuels, Transportation 
Fuels and Chemicals program. DOE's fiscal year 2003 budget request of 
$5.0 million for the Fossil Energy Research and Development, Coal and 
Other Power Systems, President's Coal Research Initiative, Fuels, 
Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program budget includes just $2.4 
million to continue the ITM Syngas/Hydrogen project. Underfunding ITM 
Syngas in fiscal year 2003 would result in stretching out the program 
and increasing overall program costs.
  I want to thank the Senators from West Virginia and Montana for 
having supported in the past both the ITM Oxygen and Syngas programs. 
Because of their attention, both development efforts have remained on 
cost, on schedule and promise to be true success stories. Now I want to 
thank them again,

[[Page S8663]]

for adding $6 million to the DOE's request for IGCC programs and $15 
million for transportation fuels and chemicals programs. This 
additional funding will ensure that ongoing programs like the ITM 
Oxygen and ITM Syngas are fully funded in fiscal year 2003. I look 
forward to working with both the Senator from West Virginia and the 
Senator from Montana as they conference with our colleagues in the 
House of Representative to ensure that $6.5 million is provided for ITM 
Oxygen and ITM Syngas is funded at $5.5 million.

                          ____________________