[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9011-S9026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 5093, which the clerk will report.
  The 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, 2003, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd Amendment No. 4472, in the nature of a substitute.
       Byrd Amendment No. 4480 (to Amendment No. 4472), to provide 
     funds to repay accounts from which funds were borrowed for 
     emergency wildfire suppression.
       Craig/Domenici Amendment No. 4518 (to Amendment No. 4480), 
     to reduce hazardous fuels on our national forests.
       Dodd Amendment No. 4522 (to Amendment No. 4472), to 
     prohibit the expenditure of funds to recognize Indian tribes 
     and tribal nations until the date of implementation of 
     certain administrative procedures.
       Byrd/Stevens Amendment No. 4532 (to Amendment No. 4472), to 
     provide for critical emergency supplemental appropriations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 
debate on the Dodd amendment No. 4522 until 4:40, equally divided 
between Senators Dodd, Inouye, and Campbell, or their designees.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the amendment is offered on behalf of myself 
and Senator Lieberman. I presume he will be coming to the floor at some 
point. He has a strong interest in the amendment. I want to be notified 
by the Chair when I have consumed 10 minutes, so I can leave time for 
Senator Lieberman.
  I begin by thanking my colleagues from Hawaii and Colorado. They were 
very generous--they are all the time, but particularly last week--in 
conducting a hearing on the subject matter that is the subject of this 
amendment. They graciously listened to a series of witnesses from the 
administration, from Connecticut, mayors from towns in Connecticut, 
along with other interested parties on the subject matter generally of 
the recognition process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So any 
discussion of the matter before us

[[Page S9012]]

should begin with an expression of gratitude to both of these 
distinguished Members of the Senate for their willingness to listen to 
the case we presented.
  Again, I express my gratitude to them. They are friends of mine, and 
this is one of those awkward moments that can happen when good friends 
find themselves on opposite sides of an issue.
  Secondly, I had a good meeting last week with some of the national 
representatives of the Native American community from Indian country 
here in the Senate. I did state to them, which I will state here as 
well, that I take great pride in the relationship I have with my Indian 
constituents in Connecticut, as I have had around the country--on 
numerous occasions, whether appearing in Window Rock, AZ, or with the 
Gila River tribes, and others; with my good friend from Alaska, and 
others; I take a great deal of pride in my strong support for the 
Native American community.

  What brings us here, and what Senator Lieberman and I are raising, is 
the concern that we have over the present recognition process. It is a 
concern that was not generated by my State alone. It was, in fact, 
generated by a study done by the Government Accounting Office, backed 
by representatives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 2000, the 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs stated before the U.S. Congress 
that the system was terribly broken and in need of repair. I don't know 
of anyone who disagrees with that.
  Now, there are suggestions on how best to repair this. The problem is 
that while we are waiting for the repairs to occur, recognitions are 
going forward. In many cases, of course, they will be proven to be 
absolutely well-deserved, but others may not be. My concern is when 
that happens, it not only does damage to the communities and others who 
may be adversely affected by those decisions, but I argue just as 
strongly that an adverse impact occurs as well on existing tribal 
nations that have long sought recognition, and suspicions are raised 
about the validity and credibility of the process. Those who have 
received recognition I think are devalued as well. There are now 
pending 222 recognition petitions before the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  I have put up a chart showing where they are in the country. Many 
States, of course, have none; 37 States have at least 1 pending. In my 
State there are 12. Understand the size of my State. It is about 110 
miles by 50 miles. There are national parks in this country that are 
larger geographically than my State. Some counties in various States 
are larger than Connecticut. So when you start talking about 12 
petitions pending, you can begin to understand what the impact can be, 
particularly if there are concerns about the validity of some of the 
petitions pending. Massachusetts has 6, Rhode Island has 5, California 
has 53, North Carolina has 16, South Carolina has 11, Michigan has 10, 
Louisiana has 10, Missouri has 9, and so forth.
  My colleagues are more than welcome to look at the list I have. There 
is a particular poignancy in Connecticut because of the number. Every 
single petition may be entirely meritorious. I would not, for one, 
suggest that they should not be approved if, in fact, that is the case. 
But, if you will, what provoked this particular concern to raise this 
amendment was a decision reached only a few weeks ago where two 
petitioning parties in Connecticut recognition were each denied 
separate recognition. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs, contrary to the 
recommendation of the technical staff, recognized, in effect, a third 
tribe, and said both of these tribes are not two separate tribes, but 
one.
  That may be a very legitimate conclusion, but you can understand the 
concern when all of a sudden, without any hearings, they arrived at a 
third conclusion, and the Assistant Secretary found that to be the 
result. So that raises concerns, obviously, in the minds of many 
people. Imagine two people seeking grant applications, both 
applications are rejected, and the Secretary of some agency construed a 
third grant application. It seems to me that goes beyond any parameters 
that Congress has extended to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in this kind 
of a process.
  As I mentioned earlier, we have already seen statements from the 
Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I quote him:

       I am troubled by the money backing certain petitions, and I 
     do think it is time that Congress should consider an 
     alternative to the existing process. Otherwise, we are more 
     likely to recognize someone that might not deserve it.
       The more contentious and nasty things become, the less we 
     feel we are able to do it. I know it is unusual for an agency 
     to give up a responsibility like this, but this one has 
     outgrown us. It needs more expertise and resources than we 
     have available.

  Mr. President, we could not agree more. I am not suggesting with this 
amendment, by the way, that any of the applications should be rejected. 
This bill would involve a 1-year moratorium to put the brakes on in 
order to put in place a recognition process that is predictable, 
credible, that would allow people to have an opportunity to respond, if 
you will.
  I don't believe a year is asking too much. I know there are tribes 
that have been waiting decades, in some cases, for recognition. I feel 
as strongly about what has happened to them as I do in areas where 
recognition may be extended where it may not be warranted. The process 
is broken if you have to wait 25 years to be heard. That itself makes 
the case. That argues for the amendment and not against it.
  So we feel strongly this amendment is not an egregious reach of 
authority.
  Many people all the time ask us for support on various matters. I 
have certainly cast many votes where parts of the country have been 
affected by drought or other natural disasters. This is not a natural 
disaster. It is not even a disaster. It does not rise to that level, 
but my colleagues ought to understand when we have this kind of 
pressure occurring in a relatively small piece of geography where 
concerns are being raised despite recommendations of a technical staff 
and other recommendations, one can understand the urgency. I think any 
Senator representing his or her State faced with this kind of issue 
would take a similar position.
  It is with a sense of regret that we have moved forward. I wish we 
had more time to wait and that another year or two would be adequate. 
But in the next year or two, we are going to find a lot of these 
recognition petitions to have been ruled upon. They may be ruled 
invalid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will let my colleagues proceed and share a 
few thoughts. The General Accounting Office is the last point I will 
make. In their study released last November, they were highly critical 
of the BLM. They did not just speak about Connecticut. They talked 
about the country. They said the Assistant Secretary has rejected 
several recent recommendations made by the technical staff, all 
resulting in either proposed or final decisions to recognize tribes 
when staff recommended against recognition.
  I am not suggesting staff is always right in these matters or 
suggesting they are right and the Assistant Secretary is wrong. 
However, it seems to me it ought to be a source of some trouble when we 
have that kind of conflict of opinions occurring. Especially with 222 
petitions pending, with criteria being used selectively, I think it is 
dangerous and could provoke a lot of hostility which we ought to avoid.
  I urge the amendment be adopted, and I withhold the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Dodd and Senator 
Lieberman. I know, probably better than most in this Chamber, the 
exemplary voting record they have had and the strong voice they have 
been in supporting American Indians nationwide, people who very often 
are left out and do not have a very strong voice in the Congress. They 
do not have all the lobbyists that many groups have. They do not have 
the input that many other groups have. I know both these Senators have 
done a great job for them.
  In this particular case, my friend and colleague, Senator Inouye, the 
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, is going to move to table the 
amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Lieberman. I reluctantly say it 
is the right thing to do for our colleagues to vote to table.

[[Page S9013]]

  During the time we have been considering the fiscal year 2003 
Interior appropriations bill and Senator Dodd's amendment, the 
Committee on Indian Affairs has held a hearing on two bills to address 
the Federal acknowledgment process introduced by both of these great 
Senators.
  I know of no one who has said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is doing 
everything right, and we constantly review the actions of the Bureau in 
our committee.
  I believe the process that governs how the United States recognizes 
Indian tribes should be transparent, timely, and afford due process to 
petitioners. I also believe fundamental fairness requires that truly 
affected communities be given an opportunity to be heard because, 
particularly with the advent of gaming, there are many things that 
happen when the tribes get the opportunity to game that sometimes local 
communities believe they are left out in the hearing process.
  Of all affected communities, I believe the United States owes a moral 
debt to the Native American communities to ensure they receive every 
measure of fairness we can provide. That, in fact, is the core tenet of 
trust responsibility as set up originally in our Federal Government.
  The hearing our committee held on September 17 has been very helpful 
in understanding the effects of this amendment since it contains 
several of the primary features of Senator Dodd's bill, S. 1392. Very 
important, in my view, was a statement by the administration before our 
committee that it was opposed to S. 1392 and opposed to this amendment, 
too.
  Primary among the administration's objections is that the legislation 
and the amendment would:
  One, authorize ``interested parties'' to request that the Secretary 
conduct formal hearings on a petition, in addition to the formal on-
the-record administrative factfinding proceeding, and the extensive 
administrative hearings and appeals that are currently available. They 
are already available. ``Interested parties'' is somewhat vague.
  Two, alter the standard of proof from a ``reasonable likelihood'' 
standard to a ``more likely than not'' standard.
  And, three, create conflict and confusion with the regulatory process 
by statutorily duplicating some regulations but not others, thereby 
inserting uncertainty as to which regulatory provisions are applicable.
  Additionally, the administration informed the committee that it 
cannot support a moratorium on an already lengthy, burdensome, and slow 
process. Senator Dodd spoke to that. In fact, they did testify that if 
either the Dodd bill or the Dodd amendment passed, it would take over a 
year to promulgate new rules to implement either one, the bill or the 
rule.
  I believe the imposition of such a moratorium would be particularly 
onerous on those petitioning groups that have gone through nearly the 
entire process and are now in the stage known as the final 
determination phase.
  Just as important, in my mind, as the opposition of the 
administration is the position of already-recognized Indian tribes that 
already have a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. 
Government. We have received dozens of letters and calls from across 
the country.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the tribes nationwide 
and four national associations in opposition to the Dodd amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Tribal Opposition to Dodd Amendment

       (1) Tribes opposing amendment: 21;
       (2) Tribal association opposing amendment: 5;
       (3) Tribes or tribal associations supporting amendment: 0.


                       tribes opposing amendment

     Oneida Indian Nation
     Ft. McDowell
     Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
     Passamaquoddy Tribe
     Nooksack Indian Tribe
     Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
     Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
     Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
     Hoopa Valley Tribe
     Jamestown S. Klallam Tribe
     Squaxim Island Tribe
     Lummi Indian Tribe
     Gun Lake Tribe
     Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
     Cahto Tribe
     Susanville Indian Rancheria
     Prairie Island Indian Community
     Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Tribe
     Wyandotte Nation
     Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
     Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska


                 tribal associations opposing amendment

     National Congress of American Indians
     United South and Eastern Tribes
     Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes
     Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
     California Nations Indian Gaming Association

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, these tribes and organizations from 
across the United States, from Indian country, have declared their 
universal opposition. Indeed, they are dismayed that we would be 
considering making such a sea change on Federal Indian policy through 
the appropriations process. Since tribes have been playing by the rules 
and some, indeed, have waited for years for recognition, it seems to me 
a bit unfair to put this in an appropriations bill.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs has held many hearings on the issue 
of recognition and recognition reform over the past several years. We 
also heard from several Native groups that the process has taken 
generations and people have actually died waiting for recognition.
  I find it somewhat ironic that descendants of Native people who have 
lived on this continent for thousands of years have to document who 
they are to a government set up by primarily post-Columbian immigrants.
  One thing that has become crystal clear from our hearings--and this 
has been documented by the GAO and inspector general reports--is that 
this agency, the Branch Acknowledgment Research, BAR, is not able to 
provide information in a timely manner to either the Native American 
petitioners or to outside interested groups. That is where we should be 
putting our emphasis and providing more money for that process.
  A substantial contributing factor is the flood of requests under the 
Freedom of Information Act. These FOIAs, as they are called, are 
keeping the BAR in a state of constant churning of documents, 
preventing them from performing their core tasks.
  Those asking for reforms must recognize the process in place is made 
worse by the avalanche of lawsuits filed by local communities, State 
attorneys general, and some suits by already-recognized tribes. I fail 
to see how providing even more opportunities for lawyers to inject 
themselves into the process, and generate more lawsuits, is an 
improvement over the process. If we are going to reform the 
acknowledgment process, we should make sure we are providing reforms--
true reforms--that provide benefits not just for States, the attorneys 
general, and the lawyers, but also for the petitioning groups 
themselves.
  Finally, I cannot support an appropriations rider that would so 
substantially impact a regulatory process that has been in place for 25 
years and through which so many participants are still working their 
way.
  Placing a moratorium on the process and altering the evidentiary 
standard is a dramatic change in policy and should not be made without 
very careful consideration. I could only support such drastic actions 
if I were presented with credible proof of actual fraud or something 
equally bad.
  I must add that I do support one provision of my colleague's 
amendment and legislation; that is, as I mentioned, to substantially 
increase the funds that the BAR receives to conduct its research. In 
fact, I encourage both my colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator 
Lieberman, and would join with them in efforts in obtaining the $10 
million authorized in this legislation rather than a smaller amount 
that is in his amendment.
  Providing greater resources to the BAR would enable experienced and 
capable people, whether genealogists, anthropologists, or 
archeologists, to do their work and provide an answer in a timely 
manner.
  In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support the motion of the 
Senator from Hawaii, our chairman, Mr. Inouye, to table.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Who yields time?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

[[Page S9014]]

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, first, may I say I am most grateful to my 
colleague from Connecticut for his gracious remarks. He knows very well 
it is a very difficult chore to be speaking against his amendment. When 
one thinks of the friendship that started since the time of his father, 
this is not easy, but I believe most respectfully that the amendment my 
colleague from Connecticut presents is not proper.
  He says he is for reform. We are all for reform. As my colleague from 
Connecticut pointed out, there are tribes that have been waiting not a 
year, not 5 years, but decades to even be recognized for consideration 
by the administration. This will further prolong it.
  Those of us who serve on the Indian Affairs Committee have had reason 
to pay special attention to the State of Connecticut for quite a few 
years now--in no small part because of the tensions that we read about 
in the media reports that appear to be arising out of the fact that the 
two Federally-recognized tribes in southeastern Connecticut--the 
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe--are conducting gaming 
activities on their lands under the authority of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act--as is their right to do under that Federal law.
  Because we have been monitoring the public dialogue in the State of 
Connecticut rather closely, and because the hearing the Committee on 
Indian Affairs held last week on Senator Dodd's authorization bill, 
from which the elements of his amendment to the Interior appropriations 
bill are drawn, I would like to take a few moments to acquaint my 
colleagues with the dynamics that are at play in the State of 
Connecticut as I understand them.
  Pursuant to the compacts each of those two tribes entered into with 
the State of Connecticut, in exchange for the exclusive authorization 
to operate certain forms of class III gaming, as defined in the Federal 
law, the two tribes have been making payments to the State of 
Connecticut from the revenues derived from the operation of slot 
machines.
  Those funds are intended, as I understand it, to defray the costs of 
any impacts that the tribes' conduct of gaming activities may have on 
the surrounding towns and communities.
  Unfortunately, despite the fact that together, over the past nine 
years, the two tribes have thus far paid the State of Connecticut $2.2 
billion, the towns most directly affected by an increase in traffic and 
business, have not received funding from the State of Connecticut that 
they feel is adequate to address their needs.
  This is what one of the councilmen from one of the towns nearest the 
Mashantucket Pequot indicated in his testimony before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs last week. I have no doubt that his perceptions are 
sincerely-held, nor that they are shared by others in his town.

  It is not my place to question the decisions of the State of 
Connecticut in allocating the funds the State has received from the 
tribes, but it seems to me that we might well not be here today, were 
those towns in close proximity to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun gaming 
facilities and hotels not experiencing impacts that were intended to be 
addressed by the substantial payments--and I think $2.2 billion is 
substantial by any measure--that both tribes have made to the State of 
Connecticut thus far.
  I raise these issues that are seemingly unrelated to the matter we 
address today, because the local Connecticut town officials have 
repeatedly suggested that there is a direct relationship between the 
process by which the United States Government recognizes the inherent 
sovereignty of tribal groups and the impacts of gaming activities from 
which they seek financial relief from the Federal Government.
  I have no doubt that the citizens of Connecticut would acknowledge 
that there are Indian tribes and Native people who are also citizens of 
Connecticut, because as early as the 1600's, long before this nation 
was formed, Connecticut established five reservations to serve as 
homelands for the Indian people of Connecticut.
  Thus, for over 400 years, Connecticut has, by its own action, 
recognized that there are Indian tribes who have historically and 
traditionally, made their homes in Connecticut--and indeed, that Indian 
tribes occupied the area that is now the State of Connecticut, long 
before Connecticut established Indian reservation.
  So the arguments that give rise to my friend's amendment cannot be 
that the State of Connecticut does not recognize the Indian tribes of 
Connecticut.
  No, the argument advanced by the non-Indian citizens of Connecticut 
and some officials of the State of Connecticut seems to be that the 
United States should not recognize the Indian tribes that have 
historically occupied the area that is now the State of Connecticut.
  And so, unusual activities are being initiated by State and local 
officials, to prevent the United States from recognizing these 
Connecticut tribes.
  These activities include litigation, of course, but they also include 
the hiring of genealogists and anthropologists and historians, and even 
former employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Branch of 
Acknowledgment, in an effort to develop information that could serve to 
prove that the Indian tribes that are recognized by the State of 
Connecticut either are not Indian tribes, or at least, that they are 
not Indian tribes which should be recognized by the United States.
  I don't suppose that I am the only one to whom this position appears 
fundamentally and inherently contradictory.
  In any event, it is clear that there are citizens and local 
governments in Connecticut and even the State of Connecticut who are 
expending substantial sums and considerable energy to oppose the 
Federal acknowledgment of Connecticut tribes, and that they believe the 
United States should subsidize their expenditures.
  Indeed, Senator Dodd has a bill pending in the Committee on Indian 
Affairs that would provide grants to State and local governments so 
that they could be better able to carry on their fight.
  That is one set of issues.
  Another set of issues has to do with the erroneous perception--and 
sadly I think perhaps this inaccurate portrait is drawn somewhat 
deliberately--that acknowledgment by the United States that a tribal 
group is an Indian tribe, leads directly and automatically to the 
conduct of gaming.
  In fact, the vast majority of Federally-recognized tribes in the 
United States are not engaged in the conduct of gaming activities under 
the authority of Federal law, and many, like the great Navajo Nation--
the largest land-based Indian tribe in the United States--have 
consistently rejected gaming as a means of economic development.
  The acknowledgment of an Indian tribe by the Secretary of the 
Interior does not even entail the establishment of a land base that 
could serve as the homeland for tribal members.
  No, instead, there is a separate process to determine whether land 
should be taken into trust for an Indian tribe--a process which 
provides for significant involvement of State Governors, as well as 
State legislatures and local governments.
  That process is not an easy one--there are tribes across the country 
who will verify that it takes years--as much as 10 to 20 years--to have 
land taken into trust.
  And that is only step one.
  Should a tribe want to pursue gaming as a means of economic 
development, there is a separate process with even higher burdens to 
meet--for the taking of land into trust for gaming purposes.
  In this process, for land that is to be taken into trust for purposes 
of gaming after October 17, 1988, there is not only a prohibition in 
Federal law that has only limited exceptions, but a far greater role 
for the Governor of each State in whether land is taken into trust for 
gaming. Some commentators have even suggested that this role that each 
Governor is afforded under Federal law constitutes an absolute veto 
power.
  So to conclude, it is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to conduct 
even the most superficial survey of Federal Indian law, that the 
acknowledgment of an Indian tribe by the United State is a process that 
is separate and decidedly distinct from the issue of gaming.
  Though some may see it as being to their advantage to lump these 
different processes together and make it appear that they are all one--
as one who has

[[Page S9015]]

served on the Committee on Indian Affairs for 24 years now, I can 
assure my colleagues that it simply is not so.
  As the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Marc Racicot, 
recently was quoted as responding to the notion that people are mixing 
Federal recognition with Indian gaming, ``Is the question really about 
the Federal recognition process or is it about gambling? Frankly, I 
think people should address those questions honestly.''
  As my colleagues know, Marc Racicot is the former Governor and former 
attorney general for many years of the State of Montana.
  In that same interview that was published ten days ago, Governor 
Racicot indicated that his experience with Federal recognition has not 
been mired in ``irregularities and improprieties'' as alleged by 
Connecticut officials. Instead, Governor Racicot stated ``the process 
is clear, plain and steeped in integrity''.
  If Governor Racicot's observations were the exception to a perception 
widely-held across the country, we might have a different set of 
circumstances to address.
  But the problems that are cited by the citizens of Connecticut are 
clearly different from those that have been identified by 
administration officials, both past and present, by petitioning groups, 
by the General Accounting Office, and by those who have testified 
before the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Of course, like any new venture that bring more people, more traffic, 
and more revenues into a State, there have been concerns expressed 
about the impacts of gaming--in our history as a country we saw them 
first in New Jersey and Nevada.
  Today gaming, whether it is Government-sponsored or privately--owned 
gaming, whether it is tribally-operated or commercially-conducted--from 
State lotteries to horse tracks to river boats, gaming has given rise 
to controversy.
  As we consider the amendment of my friend from Connecticut, let those 
of us who know the difference, keep gaming issues separate, and focus 
on the Federal acknowledgment process.
  Cound the Federal acknowledgment process benefit from reform?
  I don't think there is any question that it could.
  The committees of Congress--the Indian Affairs Committee in the 
Senate--would not have held so many hearings over the years and would 
not have considered so many proposals to reform the process, were it 
not in need of refinement.
  The problem is that we do not have agreement on the nature of the 
problem and even less agreement on the appropriate resolution.
  If you asked tribal groups that have been through the acknowledgment 
process or that have petitions now pending before the Branch of 
Acknowledgment, I believe you would find unanimity in their view that 
the process takes too long.
  In testimony on Senator Dodd's authorizing bill that was presented to 
the Indian Affairs Committee last week, the chairperson of the Eastern 
Pequot Tribe--a tribe recognized by the State of Connecticut since the 
1600's--testified that the tribe's petition has been pending in the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, for 24 years.
  The BIA's records clearly document that the experience of the Eastern 
Pequot is not atypical.
  Each of the Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs within the 
Department of Interior over the past several Administrations--both 
Republican and Democrat--have stated their views that the process is 
too long, too cumbersome, and too expensive for the petitioning tribal 
groups.
  The last Assistant Secretary implemented reforms to streamline the 
process. The current Assistant Secretary is taking further steps to 
address the backlog in petitions, because by most calculations, it will 
take the Branch of Acknowledgment another 200 years to complete work on 
the petitions that are now pending before the Department.
  Senator Dodd's amendment does not address the seriously-problematic 
length of the acknowledgment process nor does it seek to reduce the 
burden on petitioning groups, and so Indian tribes across the country 
have contacted the Committee to indicate that they do not see this 
amendment as effecting the kind of reform that has long been seen as 
necessary.
  Unfortunately, Senator Dodd's amendment will lengthen the process for 
those tribal groups who are subject to the proposed moratorium by yet 
another year, at a minimum, given that we cannot know how much time 
will be entailed in the promulgation of the rules and regulations 
required by the amendment.
  Experience would instruct us that this moratorium will last for much 
longer than a year.
  The General Accounting Office examined the acknowledgment process in 
its November 2001 report to the Congress, and found that the seven 
mandatory criteria which each petitioning group must satisfy, were not 
being applied in a consistent manner. The conclusions of the GAO report 
corroborated another long-held view in Indian country.
  The amendment before us does not address this issue either.
  What the amendment does propose is something that, in the view of 
many of us who have struggled with these issues for years, requires a 
much more thorough vetting before it is made part of the permanent body 
of Federal law.
  That is the fundamental question of whether the acknowledgment of a 
tribal group by the United States should be an adversarial process in 
which other governments should participate.
  Although the current process provides for the involvement of 
``interested parties'' in formal meetings and in the process of 
appeals, and State and local governments have made very effective use 
of the Freedom of Information Act requests to further bring the snail's 
pace of the acknowledgment process to a grinding halt, there has been 
no national discussion and no nationwide consultation within Indian 
country on this fundamental issue.
  Yet, the amendment before us proposes to inject a process of 
adversarial hearings--at the request of any and all interested 
parties--throughout the acknowledgment process, and it would appear, 
before a petition is even ready for consideration.
  Another change that the amendment imposes is a change in the burden 
of proof that a petitioner must meet in satisfying the seven mandatory 
criteria.
  The impact of such a change has not been assessed--it would effect a 
change in existing law--and there can be no doubt that tribal groups 
who have been through the process and have not succeeded will now come 
to the Government seeking reconsideration under the new standard.
  Even more likely is the prospect that interested parties will contest 
the Secretary's findings in favor of acknowledgment on the grounds that 
those groups that have been acknowledged may not have satisfied the new 
standard.
  Reopening every past action of acknowledgment by the Secretary to 
assess whether the new standard would have changed the outcome in each 
case is clearly going to require years and years of effort and 
litigation.
  I think we would all agree that generating new lawsuits against the 
government is not a direction that reform should take.
  Last but certainly not least problematic from the vantage point of 
Indian country, petitioning groups, from the administration, the 
authorizing committees of the Congress, and from the Indian Affairs 
Committee is the moratorium that Senator Dodd's amendment would impose 
on the acknowledgment process.
  This moratorium affects not only the groups that have been in the 
process for twenty years or more, and not only the groups whose 
petitions are the subject of Federal district court orders, but also 
groups that are already through the acknowledgment process and 
currently in the appeals phase.
  Particularly in the case of this last group, there has been no 
rationale advanced as to why a moratorium should be imposed on their 
petitions in order to reform a process of which they are no longer a 
part.
  Like many of us, I read the newspapers and media accounts from other 
States. Over the years, I have even spent a little work time in 
Connecticut trying to be of assistance to the citizens of Connecticut. 
So I think I have a sense of what pressures are brought to bear on the 
Members of Congress who serve that State.

[[Page S9016]]

  Working together, I think we can address the concerns that were 
expressed at the Indian Affairs Committee hearing last week, but I have 
to say, as chairman of the authorizing committee, that proposed changes 
in substantive law and regulations require and deserve careful 
consideration.
  If the provisions of Senator Dodd's authorizing measure are to become 
law, they should be considered in their entirety--not in piecemeal 
fashion in an appropriations bill--and they should be considered in the 
context of what reform is needed--as defined by a much larger base of 
our national citizenry than the citizens of one State.
  And so I call upon my colleague from Connecticut to work with us to 
effect comprehensive reform, and in the interim, to allow the 
administration to take the steps it has proposed to improve upon the 
current process with funds appropriated for that purpose.
  All of the tribal groups that would be immediately affected by the 
proposed moratorium filed their petitions well before the advent of 
Federally-authorized Indian gaming.
  They couldn't have been motivated by the prospects of something that 
did not exist when they filed their petitions and should not be 
penalized for what has since come to pass.
  Let us keep these matters separate, addressing the impact of gaming 
as they arise, and addressing reform of the Federal acknowledgment 
process with the deliberative discussion that it deserves.
  With these considerations in mind, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
Senator Dodd's amendment.
  I will share footnotes in history that we may have forgotten over the 
years. Our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the importance of 
Indian nations that in the Constitution of the United States they have 
set forth, in good language, that Indians should be recognized as 
sovereign countries and as sovereign nations. We have entered into 800 
treaties with Indian countries, as we do with the British, the Germans, 
the French, the Japanese, and the Chinese.
  Indians are sovereign. I realize it is very difficult for fellow 
Americans to look upon the Indians as sovereign people, but they are. 
They were here before we arrived. This was their land.
  Sadly, I must report that the Senate--of the 800 treaties we have had 
signed by the President of the United States and by the ruling monarchy 
of the nation, 430 were ratified by our predecessors and 370 are still 
in the files. They are in the files because we found oil, gold, and 
precious material and suddenly we felt, no, we cannot give that away.
  Of the 430 we ratified, we violated provisions in every single one of 
them. That is our record. I am not proud of it. I think the Indians 
have waited a long time for justice, and I am sorry to say to my 
dearest friend of all that this does not bring justice to them.
  When the first European landed here, he found a sophisticated and 
organized group of people. They had elected leaders. They had a 
judiciary. In fact, if one reads the writings of Jefferson and Benjamin 
Franklin, they will note reference to the Iroquois Confederacy, a 
confederacy made up of six tribes, six nations. Each tribe elected 
their representatives, the judiciary, their leader. They sent a 
delegation of representatives to the central office, and the clan 
mothers voted to select the supreme chief. In those days, long before 
we came on the scene, the women took part in the electoral process. 
They were a few years ahead of us. That was democracy as our 
forefathers conceived.
  Laws were passed to further strengthen the basis of sovereignty. At 
the time they were recognized as sovereign nations, these Indian 
nations had jurisdiction, authority, and control over 550 million acres 
of land. Since then we have had the Indian wars, and let us call it 
what it was, Indian extermination laws. We had what is known as an 
allotment. Let's open it up. From 550 million acres, today there are 50 
million left.
  One of the provisions in this amendment speaks of lands where they 
historically resided. Most of the Indians of this land do not live in 
places where they historically resided. The Cherokees now live in 
Oklahoma. After the Indian wars, they were rounded up from the 
Carolinas, and before they landed in Oklahoma, the dumping ground, 80 
percent were dead.
  So where is the historic place of residence? One can say that of just 
about every Indian tribe. This is what we are dealing with.
  In the State of Connecticut, there are two very successful Indian 
casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. In the last 9 years, they have 
provided income to the State of $2.2 billion because that is part of 
the agreement with the State of Connecticut. That is a lot of money.
  We cannot intrude ourselves into the affairs of the State and say you 
should give that money to the town next to Foxwood or next to Mohegan 
because the impact is greater. That is the State's decision. I would 
think the moneys these Indians have provided for the government of 
Connecticut should be sufficient, but that is not within our 
responsibility.
  Another footnote in history: One would get the impression after 
listening to this debate that most of these Indians who are seeking 
recognition and who are seeking land are seeking such land for gambling 
purposes. Far from the truth, sir. Most of them do not want gambling. 
In fact, the largest Indian tribe in our Nation is the Navajos. They 
will not permit gaming within their lands. No, they do not want any 
gambling in their lands.
  Of those treaties that were not ratified by the Congress--still in 
the files around here--there are several that affected the Indian 
nations of California. Because the treaties were not considered, in a 
sense they are men and women without nations, without land. We decided 
to put them in a little enclave and say: You live here or you live 
there because you look alike.
  My first chore as chairman of this committee was to break up a tribe 
because we had put in Pequots and Hoopa-Huroks, historic fighters.
  Just in case one gets the impression the Indians are ``give me, give 
me, give me, all the time,'' they have given more than any one of us 
can expect. As one who values the service of men and women in uniform, 
may I simply say that of all the ethnic groups in the United States, of 
all the racial groups in the United States, on the basis of per capita 
participation, the Indians have sent more sons and daughters in uniform 
to face harm's way than any other ethnic group--more than the Germans, 
the Irish, the British, or what have you. Indians have fought in every 
war in the last century, and every one now, in greater numbers. They 
have given their lives in greater numbers, per capita. They are not 
asking for a handout. They are asking for what the Constitution calls 
for and what the laws of this land call for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut.
  In a little over an hour the Senate will vote on the amendment 
Senator Dodd and I have introduced which we believe will reform and 
strengthen the Federal tribal recognition process to the benefit of the 
Native American community and everyone else concerned. It will make 
that process more fair and give it more credibility and hopefully will 
provide the resources to have the decisions on tribal recognition made 
by the BIA and the BAR in a much more timely fashion.
  Some tribes have been waiting years and years and years for a 
decision from this recognition process that is, regrettably, broken. Of 
course, in part it is broken because of the gambling associated with 
Native American tribal recognition and the surge of applications, the 
dramatic interest in recognition. Often, recognition leads to the 
presence of gambling in a locality and the inability of these 
regulatory authorities to keep up with that extraordinary increase in 
demands on them.
  In Connecticut--a relatively small State, yet we have three federally 
recognized tribes--one recently recognized tribe is being appealed and 
nine more recognition petitions from our small State are in the 
pipeline of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have in two of the 
federally recognized tribes the two largest casinos in North America, I 
believe in the world. So there is an impact that these decisions have.
  That is why, last year, my colleague from Connecticut and I 
introduced S. 1392 and S. 1393, which were designed to

[[Page S9017]]

reform and improve the process by which the Federal Government 
recognizes the sovereign status of American Indian tribes and their 
tribal governments. We certainly did not view this as antirecognition 
because there is a historic, a moral right to recognition by tribes 
that can meet the requirements of this process. Nor was it, as we 
conceived of it, inherently antigambling. It was to say that the 
decisions have taken on extraordinary importance and they ought to be 
reached by a process that is not only fair in itself and gives all 
participants--the tribes claiming recognition, the neighbors of the 
tribal grounds, towns, et cetera--the belief that they have been 
through a process that is fair and therefore that the results of the 
process, the decisions made, are credible.
  We have introduced this amendment reluctantly because the problems 
with the tribal recognition process have not gotten better, 
notwithstanding concerns expressed by many, as has been indicated here.
  As my colleague from Connecticut has said, this happens to be a 
problem that has impacted Connecticut, a relatively small State, but 
this is really a national problem affecting Native Americans seeking 
tribal recognition in the States in which they are now located.
  Let me quote from the GAO report, which has been cited, which found 
that ``the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always 
clear.''
  It went on to state:

       While there are set criteria that petitioners must meet to 
     be granted recognition, there is no clear guidance that 
     explains how to interpret key aspects of the criteria. For 
     example, it is not always clear what level of evidence is 
     sufficient to demonstrate a tribe's continuous existence over 
     a period of time--one of the key aspects of the criteria. As 
     a result, there is less regulatory certainty about the basis 
     for recognition decisions.

  That is from a critical report by the GAO on this recognition 
process. That GAO critique has been seconded by the Interior 
Department's inspector general and, as has been noted in this debate, 
even by the past Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
  Despite these critiques, there have been no real changes in the 
recognition process to fix the problems. Instead, the status quo has 
continued at the BIA, with applicants experiencing long delays and 
parties in various cases dealing with decisions that they believe have 
been unfairly arrived at. The amendment we will vote on at 5:30 this 
afternoon is our attempt to improve this situation. Rather than letting 
the process continue in the current manner, we ask for it to provide 
adequate procedures to ensure its legitimacy--something that would 
benefit both the tribes and the communities and parties that surround 
them.

  I want to stress that this amendment does nothing to affect already 
recognized Federal tribes or to hinder their economic development 
plans; nor does it change existing Federal tribal recognition laws. It 
is our hope, in fact, and has been our hope, that the Native American 
tribes might support these procedural reforms that we are recommending 
so as to buttress the legitimacy of the ultimate recognition rulings.
  While, as my friends and colleagues from Colorado and Hawaii have 
indicated, that is not the case and, in fact, a large number of Native 
American tribes have opposed this amendment, I continue to hope the 
fact that we have brought it before the Senate may encourage them, 
under the wise and fair leadership of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. 
Inouye, and the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, to see if we can't 
find common ground.
  It seems to me no matter what side you are on in a particular 
proceeding before the BAR or BIA, you have an interest in due process 
and you have an interest in the result of the process being as broadly 
credible as possible.
  What our amendments would do consistent with recognition laws is to 
ensure that recognition criteria are satisfied and that all affected 
parties, including affected neighboring towns, have a chance to fairly 
participate in the decision process. Our amendment ensures a system of 
notice to affected parties. It assures that relevant evidence from 
petitioners and interested parties, including neighboring towns, is 
properly considered; that a formal hearing may be requested with an 
opportunity for witnesses to be called and with other due process 
procedures in place; that a transcript of the hearing is kept; that the 
evidence is sufficient to show the petitioner meets the seven mandatory 
criteria of Federal regulations; and that a complete and detailed 
explanation of the final decisions and findings of fact are published 
in the Federal Register. There is nothing very radical here. It is 
basic due process procedural rights, all consistent with the 
established recognition criteria. We have not changed the recognition 
criteria in the amendment that we proposed.
  Under the amendment, funding available under the Interior 
appropriations bill to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the recognition 
process becomes available when these fundamental due process procedures 
are implemented by the Secretary of the Interior. So insofar as this is 
considered a moratorium, it is a moratorium, as I know Senator Dodd has 
indicated, that could end in a week if these due process changes were 
put into effect. Our amendment dictates no outcomes in any particular 
cases. It aims to ensure a fair process.
  So I hope my colleagues will take a look at the amendment. In some 
sense the impact of the currently broken process at the BIA has been 
felt with a particular intensity in Connecticut. But this is a national 
problem.
  We may not adopt this amendment today. I hope we will, but if we do 
not, this is a problem that is not going to go away. It is going to be 
felt more and more around the country. Again, I say our aspiration is 
to find common ground. I thank the Chairman, Senator Inouye, and 
Senator Campbell for their characteristic courtesy and respect and 
thoughtfulness. We disagree on this one. It is a disagreement in good 
faith on both sides. I continue to express the hope that under their 
leadership, those who are concerned about the fairness of the 
recognition process, those who are concerned about the lack of speed in 
the process--the terrible delays--will be able to come together and 
agree on a series of reforms, and then the funding for additional staff 
at the BAR and BIA to make the promise of due process here real for all 
concerned.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Colorado has 3 minutes 53 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see the majority whip. I ask unanimous 
consent we extend the debate an additional 10 minutes, equally divided, 
so we can make some concluding remarks.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think that would be appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have made most of my comments already. 
I don't know who else will be here on the floor to speak against the 
Dodd-Lieberman amendment, but I would like to respond to just two small 
points that were made by our friend, Senator Lieberman.
  First, though, let me thank Senator Inouye for a very eloquent 
statement. He really does speak from the heart. When you hear him talk 
about basic fairness and justice that American Indians deserve and 
need, I think Senator Inouye's own experience and background as a 
Japanese-American and what his people went through in World War II 
gives him a very special insight, and certainly a very special feeling 
for what Indian people face.
  Let me make two very short comments on Senator Lieberman's remarks. 
He made reference that this would not affect existing tribes. He is 
right, I guess, in some respects. But I think we need to look at that 
in historical context.
  First of all, when the original recognition process was done--clear 
back in the early 1800s--it was done so that the Federal Government 
could provide rations, blankets, and so on, to the Indian tribes that 
were deprived at that time of their hunting rights and restricted to 
certain areas. That is why it was originally set up. They had to find 
out who qualified to get some benefits, and that is what trust 
authority is about.

[[Page S9018]]

  It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber to know that there were 
some people even at that time who did not want recognition. Certainly 
some of them hid out in the hills of the Carolinas because of the Trail 
of Tears, when their cousins and brothers and fathers were rounded up 
and driven at gunpoint clear across the Nation to Oklahoma. The ones 
who hid out in the Southeast States--would you want to tell some 
government bent on killing your people you want to be recognized? Not 
likely; that would be a pretty dumb thing to do.

  There have been Indian people in some parts of this country all along 
who were not ``recognized'' by the U.S. Government. It didn't mean they 
were not Indian. It didn't mean anything of the sort. They knew very 
well what would happen to them if they were so-called recognized.
  The second point I want to make is during the 1950s, during what was 
called the Termination Act, the Federal Government, in its infinite 
wisdom, decided many Indian tribes were no longer tribes. I guess that 
meant they were no longer Indians, at least not of a group of Indians. 
That has always rather confused me because I have always likened it to 
maybe telling African Americans that they were no longer Black. I mean, 
you are what God made you. That's it.
  But through the Termination Act of the 1950s--I don't remember the 
exact number, and I don't have it in my notes--as I just offhand 
remember, there were over a hundred, if not several hundred, tribes who 
were told by the Federal Government: You are no longer Indian tribes.
  Many of them are still trying to be rerecognized. The ones that were 
terminated in the 1950s, they have to get recognized through a 
different process. They have to do it through legislation.
  But the point is the fact that many of them that historically had 
ancestors on this continent maybe for 10,000 years were being told by a 
government set up by new immigrants that they were no longer Indian 
tribes still confuses me.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for a 
very eloquent statement. Let me also thank my colleague from Hawaii for 
a very eloquent statement he has made. I would not take issue with any 
comment he made about the relationship between the history of the U.S. 
Government and its treatment of Native American tribes going back to 
the founding days of this Republic.
  It is a sorry history in many instances and circumstances.
  The Senator very graciously mentioned my father. Let me mention my 
mother. My mother used to tell me all the time that two wrongs do not 
make a right.
  That we have done a terrible injustice to Native American people over 
the years does not justify, in my view, continuing a process that would 
allow recognition to occur where it may not be warranted. In America, 
where recognition should be extended and granted, the process must be 
fair. As for the recognition process--its history--my friend from 
Colorado makes a very strong statement. It is something of a historic 
anomaly in many ways; that's why recognition must even occur. The fact 
is that the current process is the law of the land.
  I can speak very directly about my own State. It is a difficult 
process, which is still ongoing for that matter. There are those in my 
State and others who would like to undo the recognition extended to the 
Mashantucket Pequots. Books have been written about it. Popular books 
have been written. That garnered national attention in questioning the 
recognition of that tribe. I have disagreed with them.
  I also know the process that the Mohican Tribe went through in my 
State. It was a very long and elaborate process, working very closely 
with the community leaders in the towns in which they are located--
State, as well as the National Government.
  Our point here is not about the history, as much as concern about the 
history is justified. It is not about the past, as legitimate as those 
arguments are. It is about today and the future.
  Let me quote, if I can, a letter I received from the National 
Congress of American Indians.
  By the way, the amendment that is part of the bill was considered for 
over a year and isn't written out of whole cloth. I showed this 
amendment to Native Americans around the country and asked them what 
they thought of the amendment.
  This letter I received from Tex Hall is dated September 12 of this 
year. He opposes the amendment. Let me be very clear. The National 
Congress of American Indians opposes the Dodd-Lieberman amendment, but 
listen to what he says in the letter. I am reading from the second 
paragraph.

       And I believe that tribal leaders agree with you it must be 
     a rigorous process requiring the petitioner to demonstrate 
     historical and continuous American Indian identity in a 
     distinct community. We believe that the process could benefit 
     from a serious review by Congress and a codification of the 
     process and the criteria.

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


                                             American Indians,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2002.
     Re Opportunity to Meet and Discuss Federal Recognition 
         Process.

     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the more than 250 member 
     Tribal Nations of the National Congress of American Indians, 
     I write to request an opportunity to meet with you and a 
     group of tribal leaders to discuss proposals to change the 
     process for petitioning the federal government for 
     recognition as a federally-recognized Indian tribe.
       Both the federal government and the NCAI have a 
     longstanding position that legitimate Indian tribes whose 
     status has been historically omitted should have the right to 
     petition for formal recognition by the federal government. 
     And I believe that tribal leaders agree with you it must be a 
     rigorous process requiring the petitioner to demonstrate 
     historical and continuous American Indian identity in a 
     distinct community. We believe that the process could benefit 
     from a serious review by Congress and a codification of the 
     process and the criteria.
       The current process is plagued by an enormous backlog, and 
     some petitioners have been waiting over two decades since 
     they submitted their initial petitions. NCAI believes that 
     the federal government should make the resources available so 
     that petitions can be processed in a timely way.
       As you know, we do not agree with your pending amendment. 
     We believe it would create an indefinite moratorium on the 
     recognition process. Because there is no incentive for the 
     Secretary to actually create the new process, the petitioning 
     tribes would be put in limbo for additional years, adding to 
     the unjustness of the already interminable federal delays.
       In addition, by attempting to create a moratorium on 
     federal tribal recognition through the introduction of an 
     amendment to the Interior Appropriation bill, this amendment 
     attempts to circumvent the Congress' procedures for dealing 
     with complex Indian issues like federal recognition. Such a 
     drastic change in federal Indian policy should be referred to 
     the authorizing committees for development of the record and 
     an opportunity for broader participation and deliberation. 
     While we greatly appreciate the contacts from your office, 
     two days notice is not nearly enough time to engage tribal 
     leaders in a meaningful discussion.
       As I mentioned above, I would very much like to meet with 
     you to discuss these matters in greater detail and would be 
     willing to put together a small group of tribal leaders to 
     participate in the discussion. I believe that we should also 
     include Senators Inouye and Campbell in the discussion, so 
     that this issue can be prepared for review by the Senate 
     Committee on Indian Affairs.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tex G. Hall,
                                                        President.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleagues ought to know that in the 
concluding paragraphs of the letter he disagrees with this amendment.
  But his conclusion about a process that needs repair is one that is 
embraced almost by all.
  My good friend from Colorado has legislation pending that would move 
the present recognition process from the BIA to a new commission. I 
agree with him on that approach. I believe it will take time to get 
that done. I presume there will be regulations and the like appended to 
it.
  It is not a question of debate about whether or not the process is in 
need of repair. It appears that everybody agrees with them because of 
what has happened and the various circumstances. We are talking about 
222

[[Page S9019]]

petitions, and maybe more--all of which may be legitimate. But 
shouldn't we know in the end that there has been a process followed 
fairly by all and that there will be at the end of the day a conclusion 
that is just and reasonable and will withstand the test of time? That 
is all we are suggesting.
  The poignancy, I suppose, is because it impacts my State. I am aware 
of it because of what's going on in my State. If I had no petitions 
pending in my State, I wouldn't be standing here. I wouldn't be aware 
of the issue. But we are aware of it.
  I am worried about the future for the very same reasons that history 
suggests--that we will find out again that there is unnecessary 
division, hostility, and resentment growing. That should not be the 
case.
  I strongly urge that this amendment not be defeated--I suspect that 
it may be--and that we do something soon to repair a process that looks 
too cavalier. If there is just going to be recognition of all petitions 
coming forward, why don't we just say so straight out? If there is 
going to be a process to demonstrate satisfaction of some particular 
criteria, let us make sure it works. As it is now, it is catch as catch 
can. Sometimes the rules apply. Sometimes they don't. Of the seven 
criteria, some we follow rigorously, and some we don't at all. Some are 
applied in some cases and not in others. Some petitioners are granted, 
some are denied, and some are brought together. There are third choices 
inexplicably made.
  This isn't working right. It needs to be repaired. We can do that in 
a very short order because we recommend no new criteria. We just say 
codify the existing criteria, put it in shape, and let everybody know 
what the process is working so they can go through it in a reasonable 
way. It is outrageous that they should have to wait two or three 
decades for recognition.
  The fact is that we have supported additional resources here to the 
agency to try to provide the technical staff so decisions can be made 
within a reasonable amount of time. With these resources, people can be 
heard and the agency can reach final conclusions that I believe all 
Americans can support.
  That is what this amendment tries to do--nothing more than that and 
nothing less than that, but nothing more than that.
  Again, I suspect the amendment will be defeated, but I hope the end 
result is that we can get a better system. My State may regrettably 
find itself with some petitions granted that do not deserve to be, but 
maybe that is the price you pay for doing something about broader 
reform.
  I regret that there had to be a disagreement between people who 
support Native Americans. I admire them immensely. But as I look down 
the road here, I worry that if we don't straighten this situation out 
that we could find the situation getting worse. I don't want to see 
that happen. For those reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes seventeen seconds.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senate should rule that the votes 
against the amendment prevail, may I assure my colleagues that the 
committee stands ready to consider any and all suggestions on how to 
reform this process. It is a scandal at this time. We realize that. It 
should be changed.
  I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the motion entered to reconsider the vote whereby cloture 
was not invoked on amendment No. 4480 is agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider is agreed to.
  There will now be 60 minutes for debate with respect to that cloture 
motion, with the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders 
or their designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republicans have still 10 minutes as if 
in morning business. The time is yielded on this Dodd amendment, but 
there are still 10 minutes of morning business to which Republicans are 
entitled. Do they intend to use that?
  Of course, we will have time later this evening, as we always do. I 
ask unanimous consent that we move forward, as the Chair announced, and 
that the time allocated be disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, point of information: What time will the 
vote on the Dodd amendment take place?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At approximately 5:37.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on H.R. 
5093. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate cloture 
motion having been presented under Rule XXII, the Chair directs the 
clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant 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 the Byrd 
     amendment No. 4480, as amended, to H.R. 5093, the Department 
     of Interior Appropriations bill, 2003.
       Debbie Stabenow, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Evan Bayh, 
     Mark Dayton, Jeff Bingaman, Jim Jeffords, Joseph Lieberman, 
     Bill Nelson of Florida, Blanche L. Lincoln, Byron L. Dorgan, 
     Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, Robert C. Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Max 
     Baucus.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that between now and 5:30 we 
have been allotted time to debate the Craig-Domenici amendment as it 
relates to the cloture motion on the Byrd amendment on the Interior 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I will allot myself 10 minutes to debate this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for several weeks now, the Senate has been 
considering the Interior appropriations bill, of which the Byrd 
amendment to that bill would put critical fire money back into our 
Forest Service budgets that have been badly depleted by the season that 
we are hopefully beginning to leave, which is known as the fire season, 
especially in the Great Basin West. That money is critical.
  But it was because of our concern about fires and the wildfires that 
have swept through the West this summer that I and Senator Domenici and 
a good many other western colleagues joined in working with the 
administration, and for a good long while in a very bipartisan way, to 
see if there was not some middle ground to create some flexibility to 
go into those worst fuel-laden lands and to develop a thinning and 
cleaning process that would be environmentally sensitive and at the

[[Page S9020]]

same time effectively reduce the fuel loading that has gone on there 
that has precipitated in some of these very dramatic wildfires that 
have occurred out West this summer.
  I recite, again, for the record, we have burned well over 6.5 million 
acres to date of wildlife habitat and watershed, possibly several 
million acres of old-growth forests. We have lost about 3,000 homes, 
private homes of our citizens. Over 25 people, I believe--26 or 27 at 
least--have been killed in relation to these fires. It is without 
question a national emergency, a national crisis. I almost have the 
sense that we have fiddled a bit over the last couple of weeks while 
our forests have burned.
  There are still fires burning in California. As we speak, acreage 
burning in a national forest outside of Los Angeles over the weekend 
has consumed over 12,000 acres and has threatened numerous homes. Yet 
because of some special interests here and phenomenal allegations or 
statements made in the media over the last several weeks, you would 
think I and others were trying to precipitate a whole new logging 
program for the forests and that somehow was evil, instead of the very 
limited, targeted thinning and cleaning that we think could and should 
be utilized to reduce the fuel loading on these forests that has 
created these firestorms.
  I have here a variety of editorials and news comments from major 
papers across the Nation. I am fascinated by words such as ``nose under 
the tent,'' ``intent to allow logging companies to be turned loose once 
again in our national forests.'' My reaction is, can those who write 
the news read the news?
  Can they not read the Craig-Domenici amendment and understand that it 
is phenomenally limited, that it would require very specific language 
by the U.S. Forest Service, that there would be the right to go to 
Federal court and block any of these actions, that we have tied no 
one's hands other than to say that on these limited, targeted acres, we 
will not allow appeals, nor will we allow a temporary court injunction 
that has locked up tens of thousands of acres already, many of them 
that burned this summer, from the ability to get in and thin and clean 
them?
  No. Those who write the news can read the news. But oftentimes those 
who write the news choose a bias that they think is popular, and in the 
end our forests burn. Thousands of homes are lost, lives endangered, 
and we struggle here at the Federal level to attempt to make some 
slight adjustments in public policy to return a state of health to our 
national forests.
  Last week, our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, came to 
the floor and offered an alternative amendment. He did not introduce 
it. He laid it before us as something that could be viewed as an 
alternative. I began to study it to try to see if it was a reasonable 
alternative or whether in fact it would deny any activity, if it was 
simply a Trojan horse in the reality of, would it do something similar 
to what the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and I had 
proposed.
  After thorough examination of that, I must tell you I believe the 
Bingaman amendment to be just that, a Trojan horse. Not only does it 
limit dramatically what you could be able to do, it creates some 
categorical exemptions. And then it does something else that is very 
important in the language of the law or the policy we are debating as 
to whether it frees the hands of the forest managers within these 
limited areas to do what is necessary to limit this fuel loading.
  It is a term called extraordinary circumstance; in other words, there 
won't be any appeals based on the standards of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, or any temporary court injunctions, unless 
there is an extraordinary circumstance.
  That is a provision in administrative regulations that governs the 
management activities of forests that is really quite clear. Let me 
count the number of ways an extraordinary circumstance could occur. It 
is literally in the eye of the beholder, in the eye of the person who 
wants to file the appeal. It probably broadens the effective 
opportunity to bring an appeal to any of these actions on our public 
lands when, on the other hand, the Senator from New Mexico would 
suggest he was creating greater flexibility.
  Organizations such as the NRDC or the Earth Justice Defense League, 
the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Southwest Center for 
Biodiversity clearly could use this as the opportunity for which they 
have already used the law, to lock up any effort or nearly all efforts 
in attempting to deal with what we would hope would be an effective way 
of thinning and cleaning.
  You have heard me speak in the last days about the total amount of 
acreage out there that is in crisis at this moment. We have about 74.5 
million acres that are at high risk, and while we have that many, 
Senator Domenici and I, and many of the colleagues who have joined with 
us--I now see the Senator from Arizona in the Chamber, who is a 
cosponsor, and the Senator from Montana--have asked that we only be 
able to deal with about 10,000,000 acres, not opening the forest wide 
open but a limited number, for a very real reason.
  I believe it is fundamentally important that we show the American 
people that when we stand on the floor of the Senate and talk about not 
entering roadless areas and protecting old growth and merely thinning 
and cleaning and bringing down the fuel loads and moving them out of 
the forest, we want to prove it, we do want the American people to see 
that what we say is, in fact, what we mean, and that the U.S. Forest 
Service will go forward in a limited way to do just exactly that.
  Do I want to prove the editorial writers of some of America's press 
wrong? You bet I do. Because they are wrong, and they flat know it. In 
fact, it reminds me of that news reporter from NPR who e-mailed some of 
our environmental groups and said: Get me the worst case scenario so I 
can disprove the logic or the arguments of the Senator from Idaho. And 
the environmental group writes back and says: We can't give you any 
worst case scenarios because we have them all on appeal and we have it 
shut down so they don't exist.
  So in other words, when we are concerned that the appeals route would 
be used in these limited cases, the environmental groups have responded 
that they are already using them, that they are not tolerating the 
activities of thinning and cleaning.
  So it is obvious why we would want to step forward and say, let us 
use this limited opportunity to thin and clean and then show the 
American people that there is a better way of conducting forest health 
and allowing our forests to once again rejuvenate themselves for 
watershed, for wildlife habitat.
  My colleagues are here in the Chamber to speak. Let me conclude.
  Even if the public policy of our country allowed it, 8 to 10 million 
acres to be thinned on a 1.5- to 2-year basis, and average that out 
over the next 20 years, we would still--because of the health of our 
forests today and the fuel loading that exists and the bug kill and the 
dead and dying--lose anywhere from 5 to 6 to 7 million acres a year to 
wildfire. That is the reality of the environment in which we live, the 
reality of the environment we are now trying to change so slightly to 
return forest health.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield myself 5 minutes. I know there are other Senators 
on the floor wanting to speak. I will just speak common sense.
  Legalese is not my expertise. I leave it to those trained in the 
discipline, as most of my expertise was on the farm.
  This is a very troubling issue for one simple reason: What if anybody 
were allowed to put in a garden and at the same time were prohibited 
from doing any weeding or watering or doing anything to make it 
produce--prevented from fundamental attention?
  I am wondering if they would enjoy the fruits of their labor when 
harvest time comes. They say history is the greatest blueprint to the 
future. Throughout history, all creation on this earth, in order to 
ensure its internal survival, it must have some kind of economic worth.
  Now, that sounds hard and cold, doesn't it? But it happens to be a 
very true fact. There are those who somehow choose to look at our 
natural resources, or a natural landscape, and put it over into the 
column called ``spiritual''--not logical, not economic.

[[Page S9021]]

Our forests cannot survive the ages with that approach. Under that 
philosophy, what will survive longer than the forests is the pine bark 
beetle. Fires will continue to exist--hotter--taking from the soil what 
cannot be replaced by anything but old growth.
  So as we approach this problem, I ask for common sense. What we are 
trying to do here is a commonsense approach to settle our disagreements 
on how we manage the forests. We hire the U.S. Forest Service to do 
that. When their management practices are questioned, the burden of 
proof falls on them to prove why that management practice will work, 
but I see no proof offered by those making the appeal that the Forest 
Service plan doesn't work. That is what we are trying to do--get it to 
an impartial environment to settle those differences. That is all we 
are asking. We are not changing any law, no environmental law, not the 
Environmental Protection Act, not the Clean Water Act, not the Clean 
Air Act, not the Forest Management Act. We are not changing any law. We 
are not denying anybody's right to appeal or to have their day either 
on an administrative appeal or a judicial appeal. We are not changing 
that.
  That was changed, however, with regard to South Dakota. So we are not 
going that far. What we are saying is we are going to put the ball on 
the 50-yard line, which requires the burden of proof both from the land 
managers and by those who would disagree with them. That is all we are 
asking. And then the third thing we are asking is that we get a vote, a 
commonsense vote.
  The American people, every night this summer, watched their forests 
burn--every night. Such a waste. There was not only the loss of the 
resource, but the loss of the wildlife and the habitat and the water 
quality because the rains will come and the snows will come and the mud 
will slide. Now, I don't know any other way to put that other than it 
has been my experience in my years of working and living in an 
environment of sun, water, and soil, and what it produces. So I am 
sorry that we have to educate and remind people that what we see 
outside in our natural environment does change.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record an editorial of the Arizona Republic this morning 
entitled ``Forest Plan Has Merits.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Forest Plan Has Merits

       Interior Secretary Gale Norton may be correct about the 
     desperate conditions of America's western forests. And she 
     may be right, too, in her pitch that President Bush's Healthy 
     Forests initiative is a reasonable plan for bringing them 
     back to health.
       But the Interior secretary--indeed, the entire Bush 
     administration--is over-optimistic in the extreme if they 
     truly believe environmentalists are going to leap on board 
     with it.
       In Phoenix last week for a Native American economic 
     development summit, Norton detailed for the Editorial Board 
     elements of the initiative, which would treat about 10 
     million forested acres deemed in critical shape.
       Much of the plan is inspired by the work of such Arizona 
     forest scientists as Wally Covington of Northern Arizona 
     University and Stephen Campbell of the University of Arizona, 
     both of whom have conducted or contributed to landmark forest 
     management studies.
       Covington has proposed thinning Arizona forests to 19th 
     century conditions; Campbell's Blue Ridge Demonstration 
     Project envisions the way to do it: By authorizing private-
     sector ``stewards'' who would perform commercial bio-mass 
     extraction. That is, private firms that would do mostly 
     small-tree logging, cleaning the forest of fuels and putting 
     the wood they chop to innovative uses. In Phoenix, Norton 
     passed around some intriguing examples of wood products 
     produced from small-diameter trees.
       Already, though, critics are labeling the proposal as a 
     tree grab on behalf of the timber industry.
       At the heart of their objections is the vast territory 
     targeted by Bush for treatment and the means he proposes to 
     accomplish it: Providing 10-year contracts to the 
     ``stewards'' and placing restrictions on the burdensome 
     review process that so many thinning projects over the years 
     have had to endure.
       Among the many Forest Service thinning projects reviewed 
     and appealed to death was the 7,000-acre Baca Ecosystem 
     Management Area in northeastern Arizona. After two years of 
     appeals and lawsuits, only 300 acres of the Baca project were 
     treated by the time the ``Rodeo-Chediski'' holocaust roared 
     through. Today, 90 percent of the Baca area is a wasteland of 
     dead, blackened stumps and sterilized soils.
       Healthy Forests is on the right road.
       Democrats in Congress are coalescing around a far more 
     limited plan that accepts many of Bush's premises but 
     restricts the bio-mass extraction to forests near 
     communities. That doesn't address the plague of deep-forest 
     destruction, and not just by fire. Federal wildlife officials 
     have identified 46 species of fish and birds that are 
     declining in population because of the thicketlike density of 
     the deep forests.
       The president's ``stewardship'' proposal deserves 
     consideration. It seems tailor-made for Arizona, which today 
     has no logging industry at all. Just thick, tinder-dry 
     forests waiting to be consumed.
       The forest need good stewards. Healthy Forests might become 
     a way to find them.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this editorial points out the plan that 
President Bush has proposed, as largely reflected in the proposal 
Senator Burns and Senator Craig and others have been talking about, is 
the way to scientifically manage our forests. We are bragging a little 
bit in Arizona because one of the scientists who pioneered this 
technique is Dr. Wally Covington of Northern Arizona University at 
Flagstaff. He and Stephen Campbell of the University of Arizona 
conducted these landmark management studies and demonstrated that by 
returning our forests to the conditions in which they existed 100 years 
ago, we can save them from disease, insect infestation, and 
catastrophic wildfire.
  What that entails is going in and mechanically thinning and 
removing--thinning the small-diameter trees that clog the forests and 
removing that and the other debris from the forest--cleaning up the 
forests, in effect; then when that debris has largely been removed, 
introducing fire through a prescribed burn in the wet, cooler months of 
October or November so the fire doesn't get out of control. There is 
not nearly as much fuel to burn and it is cooler. Then, at that point, 
basically we let nature take its course. Say the next summer a 
lightening strikes a tree and starts a fire. What is going to happen 
after this debris has been cleaned out and the fuel has been removed? 
It will move along the grass and it may burn the grass and a few pieces 
of dry limbs and debris on the floor; but since most of it has been 
cleaned up, it is not going to create a crown fire, which causes all 
the damage.
  Since most of the small-diameter trees have been removed, it is not 
going to have that ladder of trees to climb up to the canopy of the big 
trees.
  What you have seen on television is the preheating of these big 
ponderosa pines from the forest fire. Then when the fire goes through 
the smaller trees, it climbs up the ladder of the forest into the 
canopy of the big trees and explodes into those giant fireballs we have 
all seen and have been sickened by. That is what happened in Arizona 
this year, when fires devastated an area the size of the State of Rhode 
Island. That is how much burned in Arizona. When you look at the 
moonscape-type of environment that now exists, you are sickened by the 
reality that much of this could have been prevented.
  It turns out there was a project that had been proposed by the Forest 
Service in this area about 3 years ago, and there were about 2 years of 
lawsuits and appeals by environmental groups to stop this so-called 
Baca ecosystem management area. Well, the fire came through and only 
about 300 acres had been permitted to be treated by the time the fire 
came through because of the appeals that had been filed by these 
environmental groups, as a result of which about 90 percent of the Baca 
area has been burned. It is now nothing but sterilized soil and 
blackened tree trunks with no branches or pine needles on them 
whatsoever.
  So the filing of the appeal by these environmental groups resulted in 
about 90 percent of this area burning rather than being treated. Some 
of the environmental groups will say they want to protect endangered 
species or old-growth trees. Well, they protected neither in this case. 
The fire came through and wiped them all out. Why? Because we haven't 
been able to thin and do prescribed burning. We could not cut out that 
dog hair thicket that exists in the forests because they have not been 
treated before. It is called dog

[[Page S9022]]

hair thicket because they say a dog cannot run through it without 
leaving half of its hair behind in the snarly little trees that are 
growing in the area of the forest that needs to be treated.
  What happens when the area is treated? You have cut out a lot of the 
small-diameter material and taken out the debris, and you open up the 
forest to the sunlight. You create an opportunity for grasses to grow, 
and you reintroduce butterflies, birds, insects, and small and large 
animals to the area.
  All of a sudden, instead of a dead and dying ecosystem, you have 
created a very vibrant and healthy natural ecosystem.
  What is our goal with respect to the trees? Our goal is to try to 
preserve as many of the old-growth and large-diameter trees as 
possible. That is what is done when we thin the forests the way we are 
talking about doing.
  So why haven't we been able to come to some compromise on the 
legislation we are talking about to enable us to do this? The reason is 
there are radical environmental groups that, frankly, have control of 
some of the politics of this issue with some of our colleagues and have 
persuaded them that we are going to open it up to unfettered logging, 
we are going to log the old-growth forests, we are going to clearcut 
the western forests, we are going to take away any opportunity for 
people to have input as to what is done, we are going to destroy all 
the environment for endangered species, and so on.
  All of that is simply wrong. It is not true. We are talking about 
legislation that has very significant limits. These thinning projects 
have to be approved by all of the different groups, the so-called 
stakeholders, the environmental process, the NEPA process where the 
forest plan has to have been followed.
  The whole point of the stewardship projects, as they are called, is 
to enable us to go in and clean out the forests, leaving the large 
trees. That is the whole point.
  Under our legislation citizens would be permitted to file a lawsuit 
in court and appeal the plan if they want to. Nothing stops them from 
doing that. All they have to do is point out to the judge: Look, the 
object here was to save these big trees and cut out the underbrush. 
Well, they are not doing that in this case, if there ever were such a 
plan proposed.
  I do not think they want to have to face up to the reality of what we 
have proposed, which is a very reasonable way to manage our forests. In 
many respects, they would rather cut off their nose to spite their 
face. That is a phrase I used earlier today, and one of my young staff 
said: What does that mean? It is a phrase my grandmother used to say. 
It means you are basically so selfish about what you want to do that 
you are not willing to look at the larger picture, which would enable 
you to save yourself if you would apply management techniques.
  We could apply this management technique to thin the forests and do 
prescribed burning and, thus, prevent the kind of disease or forest 
fires that in the past have ravaged these forests and absolutely wiped 
out the habitats. Some people would rather have the fires exist to 
catastrophically burn the entire area and ruin the habitat for the 
endangered species and all other species because at least that did not 
permit the loggers to log big trees. That is right, it did not permit 
the cutting of any kind of trees.
  What was the result? It burned the entire forest. So the entire 
ecosystem is now dead, and it will take literally hundreds of years to 
come back and produce those big, beautiful trees we all want to save.
  It is a sorry state of affairs that we have not been able to achieve 
a result on this issue. I hoped we would have been able to do so. I 
hope my colleagues will not vote for cloture when that vote comes in 
the next 10 or 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I see no one else in the Chamber to yield 
time, so I ask unanimous consent to speak an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will go on to explore this a little bit 
more.
  One of the techniques of the opponents of what we propose is to say--
we all agree with the management. I have not heard anybody say they 
disagree with this thinning and prescribed burning management 
technique, but they want it done in an area called the urban/wildland 
interface; that is to say, where the forest meets communities--summer 
homes, small towns, so on. We will thin an area a quarter of a mile, 
maybe half a mile, around these communities and structures and, 
therefore, save them from catastrophic wildfire; that ought to do the 
trick.
  That will not do the trick. In the first place, it is a nice 
sentiment to try to save small communities and buildings, but that is 
only part of what we are about here. We are literally about saving the 
forests themselves, the entire ecosystem, the place where all the flora 
and fauna live and survive, where the endangered species live. Most of 
the endanger species do not live right on the edge of the communities.
  Why would we not want to create a healthy environment for the 
endangered species and for the other flora and fauna in the forests? 
Why would we not want to treat in the middle of the forest rather than 
just along the roads, by the homes or small communities?
  Of course, we want to save them from catastrophic wildfires, but the 
best way to do that is to treat the entire forest so the fires do not 
get a big momentum to roll into the communities.
  We had the unfortunate experience with the Rodeo-Chediski fire this 
last summer where the fire was so large and burning so rapidly with 
such intense heat that it was skipping right over areas that had been 
treated. While it did not burn those areas, fortunately, because they 
had been treated, it went on to burn other parts of the forest.
  It is no salvation necessarily that we treat a small perimeter around 
buildings or communities. That is not necessarily going to save them 
from fire. Even if it does, as I said, we still have not treated the 
rest of the forest, which is the whole object of returning health to 
the forest. That is why you cannot just limit this thinning project to 
the areas immediately surrounding communities. We will have done 
nothing to save the rest of the forest from insects, disease, 
mistletoe, and catastrophic wildfire that will destroy the trees and 
the habitat for the mammals, birds, insects, and the fish that live in 
the area we want to preserve. That is why it is no answer to say: Let's 
do treatment in the urban interface area.
  There were also attempts to put limits on how many board feet of 
trees could be removed from these areas--250,000 board feet in an area, 
for example; I think up to 1 million board feet in an area that had 
burned. The board feet of timber calculated to exist in the Rodeo-
Chediski burned area is 100 million board feet. What was offered was 
literally a drop in the bucket.
  If we are going to salvage the timber that was burned, as the White 
Mountain Apache Tribe is permitted to do on its part of the forest that 
was burned, then we are going to have to have special relief because 
there is no time to do all the studies that are necessary if anybody 
files an appeal. If they do not file an appeal, then we can salvage 
that timber, just as the White Mountain Apache Tribe is doing. If 
someone files an appeal, there is no way to get to the timber before 
the insects get to it. That is the choice we have. That is why we were 
so anxious to get something done now instead of waiting.
  As I said, it does not appear we have reached a consensus to do that, 
and that is too bad because as the editorial I just put in the Record 
points out, we do not have time to waste. We have to treat these 
forests now or they will be subject to burning next year, and, in any 
event, we will not be able to save them from the diseases that have 
infected many of the forests today.
  If there are others to speak, I will be happy to relinquish the floor 
to them. In that regard, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but if no 
one appears thereafter for a minute or two, then I will reclaim the 
floor and speak some more.
  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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9023]]

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have checked with the Senator from West 
Virginia, who has indicated he does not wish to speak at this time, and 
therefore I will go ahead until one of our colleagues comes.
  I want to tell a couple of stories about what I have personally 
observed in our forests, and it might be of interest to others who 
perhaps do not have these same kinds of trees in their States.
  The country's largest ponderosa pine forest extends through the belt 
of Arizona that runs literally from the Grand Canyon all the way to New 
Mexico and then goes on into New Mexico. These trees look a little like 
the giant sequoias in California. They are not quite as big, but when 
they reach 300 or 400 years of maturity, they are very large, over 30 
inches in diameter. They have a yellow bark with beautiful big 
canopies, much like the sequoias in California. These are the trees we 
are all trying to preserve.
  I went to an area that was BLM land north of the Grand Canyon after 
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, then-Secretary of Interior, had authorized a 
thinning project for that area in the neighborhood of Mount Trumble. 
Secretary Babbitt was able to do this because, as Secretary of the 
Interior, he had control over the BLM land, and he basically ordered 
that it be done, which was a good thing, too, because this is an area 
with which he was familiar. He had gone hiking throughout the area many 
times. He knew how desperately the area was in need of this treatment.
  So I went up there to see the work that was being done, and the BLM 
officer said: I have to show you this. Come look. And we drove to an 
area where it was just as thick as could be, with tiny trees about this 
size. There must have been thousands per acre. You could hardly wind 
your way through the forest. None of them was more than 15 or 20 feet 
high, if that. They were not very pretty. They precluded any grass from 
growing. There were no animals, obviously, that could wind their way 
through it. It was a pretty sterile environment, and they were 
obviously crowding out other kinds of trees that one would have 
preferred to see grow there.
  We came to this huge ponderosa pine, one of the biggest trees I had 
ever seen other than a redwood or a sequoia. The boughs literally came 
all the way down to the ground. All around this tree was this brush, 
these little scrub trees--maybe as tall as I am, maybe a little bit 
higher--with trunks 3 or 4 inches around. It was literally a tinder 
box.
  This BLM agent said: We have to clear this stuff away immediately. 
Any spark anywhere near here is going to set off a fire that is going 
to come all the way through. It is going to run right up the boughs of 
this tree and destroy this beautiful old tree.
  He told me there were many more in this same area, and that is why we 
had to hurry up and get this area treated.
  That is what we are trying to do. We are not going to cut that tree 
or any other trees that even approximate that size. The object is to 
clear out all the other stuff so these big beautiful trees can continue 
to grow in a healthy state, they will not have the competition for air 
and water and nutrients from all of these little trees, and there will 
then be grasses reintroduced, the animals can come up, as well as the 
birds and the butterflies.

  All of the studies by Dr. Covington that I mentioned earlier have 
demonstrated that the species come back within a year. The pitch 
content of the trees is enhanced significantly, so they are impervious 
to the bark beetles. The protein content of the grass is increased by 
an order of magnitude, so the elk and the deer come back. When all of 
the little mammals come back, then the hawks and the eagles come back, 
the butterflies begin to pollinate, and all of a sudden there are 
hundreds of more species of flowers and weeds and grasses than there 
were before, and there is a park-like condition where there are far 
fewer trees per acre but it is to the carrying capacity of the land.
  So there may only be 150 or 250 trees per acre at that point, but 
they are all beautiful trees that are going to be healthy and in an 
environment where the rest of the forests can survive as opposed to the 
kind of thing about which I was talking.
  Now why would people object to doing that? I had a group of 
environmentalists come into my office, and I asked them: Don't you 
agree that this is the right science? And they finally said: Yes.
  I then said: Why won't you do it?
  They said: Well, you do have to have commercial companies come in and 
do this thinning; right?
  I said: Yes, of course.
  And they do have to make a profit; right?
  And I said: Yes.
  And they are not going to work for free. They have to make some 
money.
  I said: You don't object to that, do you?
  They said: No, but what we are worried about is that 25, 30, or 40 
years after all of this is done and you have treated all of the forests 
that need to be treated this way, then they will turn their chain saws 
on the big trees because they will want to save their jobs and save 
their mills and stay in business, and that is what we are concerned 
about.
  I was dumbfounded at the suggestion that that would actually happen. 
If all of us who want to save the forests are as concerned in 40 years 
as we are now--and there is no reason to believe we will not--none of 
that would ever be permitted to happen. This again falls into the ``cut 
off your nose to spite your face'' category. In order to achieve 
something good, we are going to have the potential of something bad 
occurring 40 years down the road, a potential that is so small that it 
is just unthinkable it would ever happen? But because of that little 
potential in their minds, they are going to prevent us from treating 
the patient now?
  It seems very illogical. It is like saying we are not going to treat 
the patient's cancer now because the patient will live but eventually 
the patient is going to die; therefore, there is no point in treating 
the patient now.
  It does not make sense to me, and that is why I think it is a shame 
we have not been able to reach some kind of agreement on the kind of 
plan we were talking about that would have limited the amount of 
acreage that would be treated. It would have limited it to those areas 
that are so-called class 3 areas, which are the ones most in need of 
treatment where the danger of catastrophic wildfire is the greatest. We 
are not even talking about the class 2 or class 1 areas, just class 3.
  Within that, it would be further limited in the legislation we have 
been discussing. We were even willing to limit it to areas of municipal 
watersheds and urban interface as long as those were broadly enough 
defined to include the kind of forests we are talking about here, the 
part of the area that needs to be treated.
  None of that was acceptable to those groups that do not want us to 
treat the forests. As a result, we are going to have another year pass, 
presumably, unless we are able to do something next spring, where we 
are subject to these catastrophic wildfires and the forest continues to 
deteriorate.
  At what point, do we finally say, it is worth it to go in and treat 
these forests? Since there is not enough money in the world to pay 
AmeriCorps volunteers to go in and do this by one-half acre at a time, 
we have to have commercial enterprises that are able to go in and take 
out enough product that they can stay in business. That product can be 
very small diameter product. It can be poles for construction of 
cabins. It can be 2-by-4-sized timber. It can be the chipped product 
that makes fiberboard. In some cases, they may get to medium-sized 
trees that can actually produce some timber. But if so, why not? If the 
carrying capacity of the acre is such that some of the trees should be 
removed, even the so-called medium-sized maybe even 15 or 20 inches in 
diameter, why wouldn't one do that if what they were leaving were still 
the very large growth trees we are all talking about protecting?
  Senator Craig made the offer that at least 10 of the biggest old-
growth trees would have to be left. We can probably multiply that and 
say 100. The bottom line is, those are the trees we are trying to 
leave. So if the carrying capacity of the land will carry 100, 150, or 
200 of those trees, that is how many would be left. Nobody is trying to 
cut the big beautiful trees down.
  In the areas Senator Domenici and I represent, it is a dry enough 
condition in Arizona and New Mexico that we cannot stand many more 
summers of

[[Page S9024]]

drought before these forests are going to be all burned up. That is why 
we have been so disappointed at not being able to get into those 
forests now and begin this process of taking out the dead and dying 
timber and cutting out the small-diameter timber that is precluding the 
rest from growing.
  I saw the treatment area we have been experimenting with in Arizona. 
I saw the results of this thinning, and the species that have come back 
are just amazing--the birds and the butterflies and the wildflowers. It 
is incredible what can be done if this is actually permitted to go 
forward, and so I hope there is a way to do it. I regret we have not 
been able to find that way yet.
  I thank Senator Craig and Senator Domenici for their work, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl, Senator Reid, and 
Senator Craig for commenting on the Domenici-Craig amendment, on which 
the Senator has joined from the very beginning.
  I hope everyone will understand this is a very serious situation. We 
honestly believe there is a compromise that would work, that would 
prove that we can clean up parts of our forest without in any way 
damaging the so-called old forest trees, doing it in almost a manicured 
fashion so long as it is understood what was permitted to do.
  It is imperative we send a signal to the American people, not all of 
whom are in the West. Those in America who saw the fires from a 
distance know something is wrong. They probably know it got in this 
condition over many years and will not be fixed tomorrow. They probably 
concluded we ought to try to fix it.
  We are trying to have a year consistent with good rules and good 
solid approach to management so we can start this process so the users 
of the forest, and those who recreate, graze cattle, have forests in 
their backyard, all understand we can begin this cleanup process and 
move in the right direction so we can start a more major cleanup next 
year when we try to put new policies into effect to save the forests 
and not see them go up in flames.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I know the vote is pending. We all want to 
see the Interior appropriations bill move on. I have said to Senator 
Reid what we normally do with a second-degree amendment is give it a 
vote. We certainly would like that vote on our amendment. We think it 
is appropriate. We think it is within the rules. It is a responsible 
way to dispose of this issue and move on. I hope we get to that vote. 
We think it is right. It is appropriate. It is within the rules.
  It is important for the Congress and this Senate to speak to the 
issue of forest health and do so in some form. We think the amendment 
is adequate in that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is on his way 
and wishes to speak on this matter. The Senator from West Virginia has 
22 minutes, and Senator Wellstone wishes to speak. We will see what 
happens.
  In the meantime, 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. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, 
Senator Byrd, yielding time.
  I will speak briefly about the forests and the fire-thinning 
proposals and the fire-risk reduction proposals pending in the Senate. 
One amendment Senator Craig proposed is an amendment to the Byrd 
amendment to the bill. That certainly is a worthy proposal, in many 
respects. I don't agree with all aspects of it. I have offered an 
alternative that I think makes more sense. I am glad to go into the 
detail. I have done that once in the Senate, and I am glad to do it 
again.
  Procedurally, people need to realize there is no reason we should be 
holding up action on this bill or on the Byrd amendment because of the 
issue of forest thinning. The forest-thinning proposal Senator Craig is 
offering can be offered as an amendment to the bill. My proposal can be 
offered as an amendment to the bill. We can get a good debate on those 
two proposals. I would hope we could come together around a single 
proposal. We have been working to do that. Either way, there is no 
reason going forward with the Byrd amendment should be in any way 
impeded by the need to resolve this forest-thinning issue. We can 
resolve the forest thinning issue on separate amendments and have the 
debate appropriate to that.
  I believe on the merits what I proposed is a better way to go as an 
amendment to an appropriations bill because it does not make major 
changes in the underlying law. It does not make major changes in the 
authority for Federal courts. For that reason, I hope when we do get to 
a vote on forest-thinning proposals I will have a chance to persuade my 
colleagues.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. It is also my understanding that under the procedures now 
before the Senate--regarding the drought assistance measure, which 
passed by 79 votes--if this vote does not go, that money that we voted 
to approve for the farms is gone for those who are desperate for the 
money all over the country; is that true?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I agree entirely with the 
Senator from Nevada. It is very important to Senators on both sides of 
the aisle for the drought relief assistance to be made available in 
short order. I hope very much we can move ahead with that.
  We can also do this forest thinning issue. I am not suggesting we 
complete action on this bill absent completion on the forest thinning, 
but we can do separate amendments. Senator Craig can offer his 
amendment to the bill; I can offer my amendment to the bill. We can 
have a good debate. Hopefully, we can persuade the Senate on a proposal 
that makes good sense for everyone and gets the job done.
  Mr. REID. Senator Wellstone is actually on the subway on his way 
over.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator permit me to ask Senator Bingaman a 
question?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to each Senator for that 
purpose.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to exchange a couple of points with my 
colleague. I don't know if the Senator had a chance today to read the 
Santa Fe, NM, editorial about thinning forests.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I did not read that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In this very short time I will try to paraphrase it. 
They were talking about what a wonderful event it will be for the Santa 
Fe watershed--which the Senator and I have seen a number of times--when 
we get around to cleaning it and then thinning it, so that if water or 
fire would fall on the upper watershed, it would not do violence to the 
water, which is the long-term lifeblood for the city. I just wondered 
if the Senator might recognize that when we are finished tonight, if in 
fact the amendments are no longer in order, or if they are in order, 
that we will still be left with an issue of whether watersheds are 
going to be included in this new approach? And, if so, how much of a 
watershed--how much of that watershed can be done in Western States? 
Isn't that one of the issues remaining?

  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, 
I agree with him that it is an extremely important part of the issue, 
as to the thinning debate, what additional authority we provide to the 
Forest Service to accomplish thinning within watersheds. I have a 
proposal which I have shown to my colleague that I believe provides 
ample authority, particularly in the Santa Fe watershed, for them to do 
everything they would like to do there. I think the earlier proposal 
Senator Craig has will do that same thing, in fact do quite a bit more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I think it is an important issue for us to get 
resolved, but I think both proposals do the job with regard to the 
specific issue that the Senator has raised.

[[Page S9025]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for yielding the minute. I assume I 
have 10 seconds left.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't like to yield 10 seconds. I yield the Senator an 
additional minute. Does this Senator wish additional time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. No, thank you.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, I hope after this vote, before we 
finalize this, we might one more time sit and look at this. I think we 
have narrowed the issue that is most in our minds to be resolved.
  I understand you have a proposal in good faith. We have one in good 
faith. Somehow or another it is assumed by both sides that theirs each 
will do what will help solve this problem. If we had a little more 
time, if you could meet with us, it would be greatly appreciated.
  I thank Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
this quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator 
wish me to yield to him?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, less than 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Do I have 5 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is really an amendment that has 
everything in the world to do with whether or not a lot of people in 
northwestern Minnesota are going to go under economically or not. We 
had 79 votes to provide this disaster assistance. For northwest 
Minnesota, this will probably be about $300 million.
  There are some who say the administration has shown they understand 
it is a serious problem because they are going to commit $850 million 
for drought relief. First, this is a 50 cent fix to a million dollar 
problem. Second, I don't think taking this small amount of money out of 
the School Lunch Program and helping people for a couple of weeks is 
the answer to what has happened around our country--be it fire or be it 
floods or be it drought.
  I was up in northwest Minnesota on Friday. I do not know how I can 
continue to go back up there and explain to people how it can be that 
week after week this is being blocked. As far as I am concerned, we can 
have up-or-down votes on all these amendments. That is my own view. But 
I say to my colleagues, I implore them, I beg you, let's break this 
traffic jam and let's have the votes and let's move this forward.
  Really, time is not neutral for so many of the independent producers 
and the farmers in northwest Minnesota. The FEMA assistance has been 
great, but it is not going to help them. There has been massive damage 
to cropland. Crop insurance comes nowhere near covering it. We have had 
this ridiculous debate about how it is going to come out of the farm 
programs. It is not going to happen. CBO won't score it that way. But 
close to $6 billion nationally will not be additional money we are 
going to spend on the farm program because prices are up. But for the 
farmers in northwest Minnesota and the producers in northwest 
Minnesota, they have no production.
  For me as a Senator, this is the priority. It is just impossible to 
meet with people--without sounding melodramatic--to just look at their 
eyes and know what they are going through and explain how, once again, 
this is being blocked or filibustered. I know we are not going to win 
on this vote, but I urge colleagues to please vote for cloture. It 
would make a huge difference to a lot of really honest, hard-working, 
salt of the Earth people in northwest Minnesota.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the consent of the managers, I ask the 
time be yielded back so we can vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield my time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous 
order, the question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
4522. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Aye''.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) 
and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Nickles
     Reid
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baucus
     Hutchinson
     Kerry
     Murkowski
     Torricelli
  The motion was agreed to.


                             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. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Torricelli), are necessary absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:

[[Page S9026]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baucus
     Hutchinson
     Kerry
     Murkowski
     Torricelli
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________