[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 130 (Monday, September 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11731-S11736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2691, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2691) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 1731, to prohibit the use of funds for 
     initiating any new competitive sourcing studies.
       Reid amendment No. 1732, to authorize the Secretary of the 
     Interior to acquire certain lands located in Nye County, 
     Nevada.
       Reid amendment No. 1733, to provide for the conveyance of 
     land to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the construction 
     of affordable housing for seniors.
       Daschle amendment No. 1734, to provide additional funds for 
     clinical services of the Indian Health Service, with an 
     offset.
       Daschle amendment No. 1739, to strike funding for 
     implementation of the Department of the Interior's 
     reorganization plan for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
     Office of Special Trustee and to transfer the savings to the 
     Indian Health Service.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we continue to work on the Interior 
appropriations this afternoon and tomorrow--and it appears there will 
be a couple of votes later on this evening--I wish to bring to the 
attention of Senators and to this country what we are talking about 
when we talk about healthy forests and why our requests for more money 
to replace the accounts in the Forest Service, in the Department of 
Agriculture, in the Bureau of Land Management, in the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and in the Park Service in the Department of the Interior are 
important.
  I stated on Thursday that this problem of forest fires which we have 
had in the West is a national problem and one we have to address if we 
are to manage our land for the environment, for the safety of those who 
work and recreate on public lands, and if we are to have public lands 
which Americans deserve and have paid for.
  Once again, we have had a terrible fire season. Over 3 million acres 
have burned--most of it in the West and about a third of the acreage in 
my home State of Montana. I guess that makes us a little bit more 
sensitive about what we can do and what we can't do when it comes to 
forest fires and the protection of life, wildlife, and the health of 
our forests.
  We took a firsthand look at the devastating impact of these fires on 
our parks, forests, and communities in August. We had a very dry and 
hot August in Montana. The fires were so bad in Glacier National Park 
and Yellowstone Park that they were closed to the public for many days. 
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality was issuing a daily 
alert for dangerous air and air quality throughout the State of 
Montana.
  The impact of these fires goes far beyond losing trees, brush, and 
the flora of the forests of our Nation. We see a lot of the other 
ramifications also. Wildlife is destroyed and wildlife habitat is 
destroyed.
  I will reiterate a conversation I had with some folks who lived here 
in Maryland who were watching the fire burn in Glacier. They were 
concerned about the loss of wildlife in those fires. They were 
concerned about endangered species. Where do they go? I said wherever 
they go, they will not have a habitat to come back to.
  Another impact is poor air quality. Seniors and other people with 
respiratory problems suffer from the heaviest smoke which we have seen 
in many years. In fact, the airport in Missoula, MT, had to be shut 
down one day because of smoke.
  The aftermath of these fires means contaminated streams and 
watersheds. Those watersheds not only feed wildlife but they also feed 
the municipal water supplies of our State.
  Tourism in Montana is a huge industry. So there are lost recreational 
opportunities. Businesses and homes were destroyed. In fact, over 700 
buildings and homes were lost. Unfortunately, there was also loss of 
life. Statewide, 27 firefighters lost their lives this year in 
wildfires.
  We have an opportunity to act now to address the poor conditions of 
our forests and rangelands before they get any worse. We have an 
opportunity to change the conditions for the future of our kids and our 
grandkids.
  In back of me is a map that depicts a great deal of both the east 
side and west side of the country which contain class 2 and 3 
conditions. These conditions are classified as highly dangerous--or, 
let us say, flammable. I think the color red is pretty apropos. Not 
only do we see a lot of red up there in the panhandle of Idaho 
northwest of Montana, but look at the conditions in Arizona, New 
Mexico, Colorado, and you can't overlook the conditions in Oregon and 
Northern California. In fact, those fire conditions run all the way 
down the Sierras in California. We have seen devastating fires there; 
fire conditions in South Dakota, in the Black Hills in the western part 
of the State; and over in the eastern part of the State, conditions for 
rain showers.

  Nonetheless, we have to prepare for dry years. If you compare this 
last year to the drought of the 1930s, which was just as bad, had we 
not changed the way we farmed and ranched, we would have had another 
Kansas dust bowl, an Oklahoma dust bowl. This time it would have been 
more far reaching, reaching on up into the high plains of the Dakotas.
  Look at northeastern Minnesota. Minnesota is almost solid red. Yet 
their fuel on the floor, the density of their forests, tells us it is 
high priority for fire. We see depicted the Ozarks of Missouri, the 
southern part of the State around the Lake of the Ozarks, reaching down 
almost to Poplar Bluff, into the southeastern part of the State.
  If people in the northeast United States are not worried about what 
is west of the Mississippi River, take a look at the northern part of 
Pennsylvania and the wonderful forests of upstate New York. Right now 
our fuel load is high. Of course, after the storm this last week we 
might have a little more moisture; nonetheless, the fuel is there when 
it dries out.
  Look at West Virginia. Look at Virginia. Look at Alabama. All of this 
is a national problem. Firefighters who were fighting the fires in the 
West--in Oregon, Idaho, and Montana this last time--came from Florida; 
the firefighters on the Robert fires were from North Carolina; 
firefighters from Kentucky--they are all trying to get the fires under 
control. This is not just a western problem; it is a problem for the 
forests nationwide. That is what it is all about when we talk about 
these situations.
  The buildup of forest fuels occurred due to past management--or the 
lack of past management practices. Those practices allowed ladder fuel 
to grow into the healthy crowns of large trees; practices that did not 
effectively treat insect infestations and thus the high mortality rates 
in our forests; practices that did not effectively let us treat for 
tree mortality.
  We talk about thinning and taking fuel off the forest floor. I would 
love to see a demo project comparing thinned and unthinned forests. Let 
one forest grow with no management and have an area not too far away 
that has been managed. Fire behavior in managed and unmanaged forests 
is quite different.
  I remember as a young man way back I was on a couple of fires: The 
Edith Peak fire in Montana in 1953--and we lost a person on that fire, 
by the way--and the Tango fire in 1953. We learned a lot about how 
these fires react. I can state firsthand these fires now are hotter and 
are more devastating. There is more fuel on the floor of the forests.
  This picture on the left is of a forest that has been thinned. In 
other words, the underbrush has been taken out, some of the trees have 
been thinned, and the larger trees can then grow. Where the sun is shut 
out part-time, you do not have nearly the amount of underbrush for 
fuel. Compare that to the picture on the right where nothing was done 
in the forest. Notice the downed timber and the old logs on the floor 
of the forest. They bored the logs

[[Page S11732]]

and checked the moisture. Some only contained 6 percent moisture. That 
is how dry and hot it was. The desks in this Chamber have at least 6 
percent moisture. When the fire creates that much heat, it takes 
everything. It takes the humus out of the soil. It loosens the soil. So 
after the winter and then the spring thaw, we see erosion on the hills 
because there is nothing to hold the dirt in place. That is the 
difference.

  The thinned forest is a managed forest. Sure, we will have fires. We 
will have lightning. And someone will have a campfire get away from 
them every now and then. We will always have fires, but they do not 
have to be of the intensity of the unthinned forests.
  We watched a rampage fire move almost 2 miles--they move quickly--
while we were standing there, in only 15 minutes. They had a 30-knot 
wind and the flames shot almost 200 feet into the air. That is where 
most of our problem is, trying to thin and to clean up under the fuel 
that is on the forest floor.
  Grazing takes care of part of this. Where we had grazing permits, we 
did not have those hot fires because the fuel on the floor was not as 
dense.
  The next example describes forest health and fuels reduction and the 
impact on the forest. See the healthy forest on the left. That is a 
young forest with trees running from 8 to 12 inches in diameter. I 
guarantee we cannot get from that young forest to this forest unless we 
thin and get the fuel off the floor of the forest. It is that simple. 
We cannot put a dense growth on the ground, experience drought and 
lightning storms, and have it not burn. That is why you can only grow 
so many trees if you want many big trees, beautiful forests, habitat 
for wildlife, habitat for endangered species, also a place to enjoy 
recreation. The forest needs a little intervention when it comes to 
management.
  It is very simple. That is the reason, when farmers plant corn--and I 
appeal to my good friend in the chair today--they do not plant it an 
inch apart or they will have nothing. Give them space. Let them grow. 
Let them reproduce. We cannot get from the condition on the left to the 
condition on the right without effectively treating the conditions that 
have contributed to the poor health of our forests and our rangelands.
  I have an illustration of the life history of a tree on the lower 
right hand side. This is a boring taken from a 100-year-old Ponderosa 
pine. Notice the healthy growth for the first 20 years. It is very 
healthy. Then notice the declining growth for the next 70 years. 
Finally, notice in the last 10 years, after the thinning occurred to 
allow that tree to breathe. The growth rate picked up again after it 
was thinned from competing brush and maybe other trees. That is what we 
are talking about, the life of a tree. A tree is just like you and I: 
It sprouts, it grows, it ages. Then one day it dies of old age, just 
like the rest of us.
  The House passed H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a 
couple months ago. Now we have the opportunity to do the same. I am 
concerned about the healthy forest issue as I am concerned about 
replenishing the money we borrowed to fight fires within the Forest 
Service and Bureau of Land Management. So we have to work very hard to 
make sure our prevention money is not used in suppression.

  Now, there is one other thing we did not bring up. Any time you don't 
thin, any time you lose trees, some die. And we have an infestation of 
pine bark beetles up in our part of the world. I will show you a chart 
that demonstrates the infestation of that.
  Is it a western problem? No. That little beetle may be called a 
different name somewhere else, but basically, again, we have a national 
problem. The heaviest infestation is in California, northern 
California, even down into the Sierras. Right now, it is estimated they 
have anywhere from 400 to 800,000 acres infested with pine bark 
beetles.
  What pine bark beetles do is they kill the trees. In other words, 
they destroy the cambium, its ability to grow. The cambium is the 
growing part; it is what makes the rings. If you are counting the 
rings, you are counting old cambium. It is the growing part of the 
tree. I took a couple years of forestry. I surprise myself every now 
and again.
  That problem is not just west of the river. Look at Michigan. One of 
the best forestry schools is in Madison, WI, the University of 
Wisconsin. They have problems in their area, which is in the northern 
part of their State, the northeastern part of Minnesota, and the 
northwestern part of Wisconsin. It is also in the areas of Georgia, 
Tennessee, and northern Alabama. We have a little bit of a problem over 
there in a little State called New Jersey where we have a little bit of 
a problem with pine bark beetles. It works the same, but I think it has 
a different name. I am not big on names right now; I am just big on 
bugs.
  But, nonetheless, it gives you the understanding this is not just a 
problem isolated to one region of the United States. It is time we come 
together: industry, land managers, and people who use those lands maybe 
for recreation, maybe to make a living. It is time we all come 
together. But it seems as though every time we get together on this 
bill everybody becomes a land manager and everybody becomes a forester, 
and sometimes that does not work.
  But we know one thing. We have absolutely been crippled--they call it 
analysis by paralysis--in putting together a management plan to deal 
with this problem: both disease and fire. But we can do it. We have the 
ability to do it. We can do it in a way that I think Americans want it 
done.
  They are tired of seeing fires every night on their summertime 
television and the destruction they bring and what they cost the 
taxpayers. Actually, we are about $850 million in arrears right now in 
the Forest Service, and that is taxpayer money. Everybody puts money 
into that pot.
  We need to put a little more into prevention rather than in this 
devastating thing called fighting fires. So it is not a conservative or 
liberal view. Agriculture and plants and soil and water and sunlight 
don't claim any politics. The relationship of those four contributes to 
how well we manage our forests. If you have ever been in a forest 
fire--and I have--it is an experience you will never ever forget.
  So we are going to have an amendment that puts money back into the 
Forest Service and the BLM for things such as forest stewardship, 
prevention, and water quality because, I will tell you, we will have--
and it was the case in the Yellowstone fires in 1988--we will have 
erosion, we will have water quality problems for a long time just 
because once the growth is gone from the side of the mountain, then the 
soil comes down. There is nothing to hold it. So it is just not very 
good conservation. Now we see preservation--don't touch it; that is the 
way God meant it to be or whatever. This is a problem you run into 
because there have been 30 years of no management. Let's not say bad 
management but no management. We just could not get it done.

  So we have an opportunity to do what is right for our forests and for 
our agricultural lands because from these forests come livelihoods, 
products that all of America demands. They are still building houses 
and there is still a great demand for forests and forest products. 
There is great demand for the recreational areas, great demand to 
protect our wildlife. And, remember, once that forest is burned up, 
there is no habitat to come back to. So we have an opportunity, and I 
think we should seize that opportunity and do the right thing for our 
forests.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I see my good friend from New 
Mexico has an amendment he wants to offer and speak to. I have to go to 
a little hearing on Iraq. I am not smart enough to shift gears quite 
that fast. I can't go from one to the other quite that quickly. But I 
took a little of the time of my good friend from New Mexico, and I 
appreciate his indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, the manager 
of the bill, for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside temporarily and I be allowed to offer another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S11733]]

                           Amendment No. 1740

     (Purpose: To ban commercial advertising on the National Mall)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1740:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act, hereafter enacted, may be 
     used to permit the use of the National Mall for a special 
     event, unless the permit expressly prohibits the erection, 
     placement, or use of structures and signs bearing commercial 
     advertising. The Secretary may allow for recognition of 
     sponsors of special events, provided that the size and form 
     of the recognition shall be consistent with the special 
     nature and sanctity of the Mall and any lettering or design 
     identifying the sponsor shall be no larger than one-third the 
     size of the lettering or design identifying the special 
     event. In approving special events, the Secretary shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public use 
     of, and access to the Mall is not restricted. For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``special event'' shall have the 
     meaning given to it by section 7.96(g)(1)(ii) of title 36, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading the full 
amendment. I wanted her to read it so all Members would know what the 
subject of the amendment was and also the substance of it.
  This amendment would prohibit the National Park Service from issuing 
any permit for a special event on the National Mall unless the permit 
expressly prohibits the use of commercial advertising.
  Last week, I spoke at length about my concern with a particular 
special event that took place on The Mall earlier this month. This 
event was described by the Department of Interior as a football and 
musical festival entitled--and this whole thing is the title of the 
event--the ``NFL Kickoff Live from the National Mall Presented by Pepsi 
Vanilla.''
  The Mall is often used for large public gatherings. We are all 
familiar with the Smithsonian Folklife Festival during the Fourth of 
July celebration and the Cherry Blossom Festival in the spring. The 
National Mall is also, of course, one of the most significant, if not 
the most significant, sites for public demonstrations in our Nation.
  As Judge Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia wrote:

       It is here [on the National Mall] that the constitutional 
     right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest 
     expression.

  The management of The Mall is entrusted to the Department of the 
Interior. More specifically, it is entrusted to the National Park 
Service. The Park Service's own regulations and guidelines make clear 
that The Mall is not intended to be used for commercial purposes. The 
Park Service guidelines state:

       The theme of the special event must be consistent with the 
     mission of the park area in which it is to be held, including 
     consideration of possible damage and/or impairment to park 
     property and . . . values.

  In my view, with respect to the recent event I have described, for 
whatever reason, the Park Service decided to effectively ignore its own 
policy.
  Let me show a couple of photographs to make the point. I showed these 
a week or so ago on the Senate floor. They fairly graphically point out 
the problem I am trying to have addressed. This is a photograph that 
appeared in the Washington Post. It is a photograph down The Mall. You 
can see the Capitol Building in the distance. You can see the various 
banners which were essentially just commercial advertising banners for 
Pepsi Vanilla. And then down at the bottom, it does say, ``Take Pride 
in America.'' But the main thrust of the banner, I suggest, to any 
unbiased observer is that it is an ad for Pepsi Vanilla.
  Obviously, this very large football is intended to advertise the 
National Football League which we all support, but clearly, what we see 
here in this photo is commercial activity being conducted on The Mall.
  Let me show another event to make the point even further. This is a 
photograph related to the same event. It shows a large fence put up 
around a large portion of The Mall. It contains what are clearly 
advertisements for various companies: AOL for broadband, Pepsi Vanilla, 
Verizon, Coors Light. According to our Secretary of the Interior and to 
the Director of the National Park Service, these are not 
advertisements. Instead, in their view, these constitute sponsor 
recognition. Frankly, this is a distinction of which I was not aware.
  The Department of the Interior and the Park Service continue to 
insist that this event, about which I have complained in the way it was 
conducted, was entirely appropriate, that the banners and the signs 
were just sponsor recognition. The Secretary of the Interior and the 
head of the Park Service are, of course, by law the two public 
officials appointed by the President and charged with the 
responsibility of protecting The Mall and ensuring that the uses of The 
Mall be appropriate. These photos clearly represent their view of what 
is appropriate use of The Mall. I strongly disagree.
  Let me explain specifically what it is that I am opposed to. The 
Interior Department claims that the purpose of the event in this case 
was to express support for the Department's ``Take Pride in America'' 
slogan, encouraging people to volunteer for projects on public lands 
and to honor members of the Armed Forces. Obviously, all of us, all 
Americans favor these good purposes. But the stated rationale for 
approving the event is not consistent with what was taking place on The 
Mall.
  In my opinion, the Interior Department and the National Park Service 
allowed a large portion of The Mall to be virtually closed to public 
use for several days to allow essentially for a commercial event. When 
I say ``for several days,'' the permit allowed the sponsor of this 
event 17 days in which to organize and set up the extravaganza, conduct 
the event, and then remove the various items put there as part of it. 
But this was essentially a commercial event.

  It featured commercial advertising by private corporations. The event 
was used as the basis for a commercial television production. The 
commercials featuring event sponsors were broadcast over large-screen 
televisions set up in The Mall. Those commercial uses and commercial 
advertising were not an appropriate use of The Mall.
  I also believe it is not appropriate to close a large portion of The 
Mall for a commercially related purpose for long periods of time to the 
exclusion of the general public.
  I received a letter last week from the Director of the National Park 
Service. She wrote to express her concern that if sponsor recognition 
were prohibited on The Mall, many special events that had been approved 
in the past would not be able to take place in the future. Frankly, I 
would have felt better had she also indicated in the letter some 
concern for the need to protect The Mall and to protect the public 
right to access to The Mall comparable to the level of interest that 
she demonstrated for corporate sponsors. But I do agree with the main 
point she was making, that most of these special events, many of which 
involve races or walks or various charitable causes, do not infringe on 
the public's ability to use The Mall. Most are not inherently 
commercial.
  The amendment I am offering would allow the National Park Service to 
provide for limited sponsor recognition. It would require that the size 
and form of the recognition be consistent with the special nature and 
sanctity of The Mall, which is identical to the language we approved in 
the Senate earlier this year with respect to the proposed education 
center near the Vietnam Memorial on The Mall. It also would limit the 
size of any sponsor recognition to one-third the size of the lettering 
or design that is put there to name the special event.
  As the photos indicate, during the last event, that was essentially 
reversed. The sponsors' names were given by far the greatest 
visibility.
  Finally, the amendment directs that the Secretary, to the maximum 
extent possible, ensure that public use of The Mall and access not be 
restricted in leading up to or during or following these special 
events.
  I do not believe in trying to micromanage agency management decisions 
through legislation. With respect to this amendment, we have tried to 
give the Park Service flexibility to determine what is an appropriate 
means to

[[Page S11734]]

recognize event sponsors, while making it clear that at least the 
Congress believes commercial advertising should not be permitted.
  Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials have 
not shown the judgment necessary to protect the public's interest under 
the authority they currently have. Instead, they have bent over 
backwards to accommodate commercial interests that wanted to use The 
Mall for commercial purposes. While it is impossible to legislate 
common sense and good judgment, I believe the amendment would at least 
make clear that The Mall, which the Park Service itself has described 
as ``the single most significant public park and open space in our 
Nation's Capital,'' should not be a venue for commercial use and for 
advertising.
  I believe this is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is one I am 
offering on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan and Reid of Nevada. I 
hope it can gain unanimous support and that by adopting it we can send 
a strong message that we believe The Mall's special place in our 
national heritage needs to be preserved.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have this bill narrowed down to about 
five or six amendments we are working on right now. I would like to 
alert Senators, though, if they have any amendments they want to be a 
part of this bill, they should file them tonight if possible for their 
consideration. We want to tie this bill up tomorrow and pass it and get 
it into conference and to the President's desk. We don't want to deny 
anybody their right to file their amendments, but we suggest they get 
them over here tonight because we are going to finish the bill 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 1739.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been requested.


                    Amendment No. 1739, As Modified

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 
1739 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1739), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 46, line 7, strike ``expended: Provided, That'' and 
     insert the following: ``, and of which $79,000,000 (composed 
     of $20,000,000 from administrative accounts for operation and 
     support, $6,000,000 from the trust accountability account, 
     $15,000,000 from the field operations account, and 
     $38,000,000 from the historical accounting account) shall be 
     deducted from that amount, of which deducted amount 
     $63,000,000 shall be transferred to the Indian Health Service 
     and available for clinical services: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available by this Act may be used for the 
     proposed trust reform reorganization of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs or the Office of Special Trustee: Provided further, 
     That''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on amendment 
No. 1734.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for.


                    Amendment No. 1734, As Modified

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1734 be 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1734), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 88, beginning on line 17, strike ``$2,546,524,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``Provided'' on line 20, and 
     insert the following: ``$2,838,524,000, together with 
     payments received during the fiscal year pursuant to section 
     231(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238(b)) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service, of which 
     $2,329,414,000 shall be available for clinical services: 
     Provided, That funds made available to tribes and tribal 
     organizations through contracts, Provided further''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I offer these modifications in part 
because I have been informed that there are concerns about the 
germaneness of the offset we had included in the health amendment (No. 
1734), and to make a minor technical correction to the trust reform 
amendment (No. 1739). The customs user fee is a very legitimate and, I 
would say, appropriate offset; but under the constraints presented to 
us under the rules, there is a technical point of order that can be 
raised. So in order to avoid points of order, we will avoid using this 
offset.
  I regret that because I do believe that the offset would help us 
alleviate some of the appropriations pressures that understandably the 
ranking member and the chairman had to confront as they were addressing 
the issues of the overall allocation and availability of funding.
  Let me just go back to my comments last week when I offered the 
amendments. Very briefly, the first amendment would provide for $292 
million in additional funding for the Indian Health Service. This was 
the amendment that, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, we passed 
during the budget resolution. I had offered an amendment that would 
have provided for, I believe, $2.9 billion to fully fund the Indian 
Health Service, in terms of meeting the basic health care needs of 
their current user population. The President has asked for $1.9 
billion, and it falls so dramatically short of what is needed that 
there is a severe rationing of health care now on every reservation in 
the country. That rationing has affected the quality of life and, in 
fact, life itself in so many cases.
  The allocation of resources on a per capita basis on the reservations 
today is about $1,900. That is half of the $3,800 that we spend on 
Federal prisoners today on a per capita basis. Federal prisoners today 
are allocated, per capita, about $3,800 for the health care they 
receive in Federal prison. An Indian child born on the reservation is 
given $1,900. Yet the incidence of diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome, 
and some of the most difficult, challenging, and vexing problems we 
face in health care today--alcoholism, violent death--all are problems 
of far greater magnitude on reservations than anywhere else in the 
country. So their problems are worse than they are in prison, worse 
than in the general population in the country. The resources we 
allocate are a fraction of what they are in prison or what we spend per 
capita in the country.
  Per capita health care spending for the U.S. general population is 
about $5,000. So all this amendment says is we are going to put our 
money where our mouth was last spring. We said we will give at least 
$292 million. I do not think there was a dissenting vote. I think it 
passed virtually unanimously, and yet here we are with efforts, I am 
told, to defeat this almost embarrassingly minimal amendment as we 
address the consequences of life and death on the reservations today.
  The other amendment said, basically, the same thing. We are not 
anywhere close to dealing with public policy issues involving trust 
reform, trust policy. Unfortunately, the problems associated with 
government-to-government relationships and trust responsibility are as 
problematic as anything we are dealing with on reservations today. I 
cannot think of a more vexing issue maybe except for the health care 
problems we are facing.
  Since we do not have the policy, it is almost impossible for us to 
put together the infrastructure within the

[[Page S11735]]

bureaucracy to implement the policy. One has to have a policy before 
they know what kind of a bureaucracy they are going to set up to 
implement it, and yet this budget has $79 million to start creating the 
infrastructure for the implementation of the policy without having a 
clue what it is going to be.
  So what some of us are suggesting is that before we start spending 
another dollar on bureaucracy and infrastructure, let us, No. 1, agree 
on the policy but then, No. 2, let us put the money where it could do 
some good. Let us put it in the health care area, where we are so 
deficient today.
  We have a problem. Just this weekend I was home and was reminded 
again what a dentistry problem we have. I think on all nine 
reservations in South Dakota I was told this weekend that we have five 
dentists--nine reservations, five dentists. We have such a chronic 
shortage of dentists, and I will have to go back and verify whether 
that number is accurate but whether it was five or six we do not even 
have one dentist per reservation.
  We are saying we do not have the money to allocate to health care, 
but we have the money to allocate $79 million to this reorganization 
within the BAA dealing with trust land responsibilities, and we do not 
even have the policy. So we are putting the cart before the horse, and 
we do not even have enough money to feed the horse when it comes to 
health care.
  Both of these amendments are minor in scope and impact but could send 
a significant message that we understand the chronic problems we are 
facing in health care, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can 
support these amendments.
  I understand there was some confusion about whether I was prepared to 
offer these modifications today and have votes on them. I would very 
much like to have the votes this evening. We had said we would work 
with our Republican colleagues to finish this bill tomorrow, but it is 
pretty hard to finish the bill if nobody is going to vote. So I want to 
have both of these votes this afternoon. That is two votes we can have 
this afternoon, and we can have a vote on the Bingaman amendment. 
Senator Bingaman has indicated he is willing to have a vote. So now we 
have three Democratic amendments on which we are prepared to vote. We 
can do it at this moment. We could do it at 5 or 5:30.
  In order to accommodate Senators who are traveling, we generally 
agree not to have votes before 5, but I am certainly prepared to hold 
the vote open to accommodate those Senators who are traveling. Let's 
have at least those three votes this afternoon so we can work to 
complete our scheduled debate on this bill by the end of the day 
tomorrow.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chair of the 
subcommittee, has offered a very important amendment on emergency 
funding. I hope to have that vote as well.
  There is nobody on this side holding up votes on these amendments, 
and I would certainly hope that nobody on that side would, either. If 
we are going to do what I had committed to last week, I had indicated 
to the distinguished majority leader that we want to work with him to 
see if we can finish this bill by tomorrow night, and so I do not want 
anybody operating under an assumption that for some reason now we have 
offered these amendments and we are not prepared to vote. We are 
prepared to vote, and I hope we would begin doing so at 5.
  I see my friend and colleague from Montana is standing and may want 
to address these votes as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from South Dakota. We are running the 
trapline now. We have an objection to the Bingaman amendment, and 
someone wants to speak on it. Then we can vote in the morning. That 
will go away very fast. We are now running the trapline on the 
modifications of the Senator from South Dakota. We should have some 
kind of answer on that. I do not think we are going to vote before 
5:30.
  With regard to the Senator's amendment on reforming the trust and 
dealing with this problem, the policy has almost been set by the 
courts, as the Senator well knows. There is litigation on this. So I 
think what the Secretary of the Interior wants to do is to move forward 
with a system so they can finally bring closure to this problem that 
has been going on for how many years. This stretches more years than 
the Senator from South Dakota and I have probably been in the Senate.
  We have not managed the trust moneys very well. Just getting the 
system up and knowing where we are so we can conform with parts of the 
litigation is quite the challenge we have right now, and I think that 
has to move forward because right now we cannot do it. I do not know if 
anybody wants to identify the horse or the cart. In fact, I am not real 
sure which one should go across the road first right now. I am not real 
sure that they know at Interior but at least they have a system in 
order to solve it, and we cannot move forward unless they have those 
dollars. So that is where we are.
  There are a lot of people in Indian country who are very concerned 
about this and so we should move on that, but we are running the 
traplines.
  I appreciate the distinguished minority leader coming today and 
offering his modification. We should have an answer for him pretty 
quickly, and I thank the minority leader for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the response of 
the distinguished Senator from Montana. I argue that the court 
decisions have actually made the situation even murkier and have 
created and compounded problems with regard to trust responsibility 
that have to be clarified through a legislative decision. He is 
absolutely right, this thing has gone on and on, but that is my point.
  For us to lock into place, in bureaucracy somehow, a response to 
these court decisions compounds and makes even more unlikely some 
resolution to this issue, but that is obviously a view that is 
arguable. For whatever reason, the administration continues to persist 
in trying to lock in these court decisions, in my view in a very 
shortsighted and unacceptable manner for those who are involved in its 
implementation, especially on the reservations themselves. This is not 
going to work. I can't find a tribal chairman, I can't find a tribal 
council, that will tell you this is going to work. So to say we don't 
care what you think and we are going to override the rule, your own 
observations, or your own positions--our recognition of the need to 
work this out jointly--is not the way to go about it. But that is what 
this amendment is all about.

  I appreciate, once again, the observations and the leadership 
provided by the Senator from Montana.
  I hope we could have votes at least on the two amendments that were 
offered last week. I await the word from our colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If the distinguished manager of the bill does not 
object, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Historic Senate Debate

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are awaiting a couple of votes, I 
believe, at 5:30. We will vote on a couple of judgeships. Following the 
votes today, we are going to see an event in the Senate that is unique. 
I will describe briefly what this is about.
  Senator Kyl, who is the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, 
and I have visited about sponsoring debates in the Senate on a series 
of very big issues. I am chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. 
We thought it would be interesting and useful to create a setting in 
the Senate that is

[[Page S11736]]

not connected to a specific piece of legislation on the Senate floor 
and have a debate back and forth, a structured debate about a big 
issue. We will do a series of those debates.
  This evening, following the two votes will be the first of such 
debates. I have asked, on the Democratic side, Senator Durbin and 
Senator Corzine to be involved in this debate. The debate will be on 
the subject of Social Security. I believe--I hope I am not misstating 
the hypothesis--I believe the Republican side, which will be 
represented by Senator Sununu and Senator Santorum, will be describing 
their proposition that we ought to have private accounts in Social 
Security and the Democratic side will describe, I believe, why having 
private accounts in the Social Security system is inherently risky and 
moving in the wrong direction to provide security for this important 
program.
  The point is, this is considered, and has always been considered, one 
of the great deliberative bodies in the world. Senate debate is a 
fascinating opportunity to not only inform Senators but inform the 
American people about the respective positions of the Republican caucus 
or the Democratic caucus on very significant issues that have national 
importance or worldwide importance.
  I suspect my colleague, Senator Kyl, will be here in a while, perhaps 
when the debate begins. I wish to describe what will happen following 
the two votes today.
  I am pleased we are going to be able to do this with our two policy 
committees. It is important to have an aggressive, structured debate 
with ground rules and portray to the American people the importance of 
an issue of this type. This is the first, but there will be a number of 
additional debates in the coming months. We hope this will enhance the 
reputation and ability of the Senate to sink its teeth into big and 
important issues.
  This is a great country in which we live. We are lucky to be 
Americans. We are lucky to be alive now. Those who are fortunate to be 
able to serve, or are given the privilege of serving in this great 
body, never for a moment misunderstand the wonder of it all. As you 
stand at these desks that have served this country in public debate and 
the development of public policy for now two centuries, the more you 
understand the grandeur of this great body. There are times all of us 
grit our teeth a bit or wipe our brow and wring our hands and wonder if 
the partisanship or the way these issues are presented is very 
attractive to the American people. Yet for over two centuries this 
democracy has endured, and the Senate, this great Chamber of debate 
about significant, important national policies, about who we are as 
Americans, about what we aspire to become as Americans, this Chamber 
has been the location of all of those great debates.

  Those in the Senate who describe our experiences very often describe 
our experiences in the context of the Senate desk. I sat at a desk on 
that side of the room. The first desk I was assigned permanently was a 
desk of a man named Robert La Follette. He stood for many hours on May 
29, 1908, doing a filibuster. Apparently, according to history, he sat 
down for a turkey sandwich and a glass of eggnog. He lifted the eggnog 
to his lips and spat it out and began screaming: ``I've been 
poisoned.'' This was 1908. They sent the glass of eggnog to a 
laboratory to have it analyzed and discovered someone had put enough 
poison in his drink to have killed him if he had drunk it. One little 
moment on the floor of the Senate. They never figured out who did that, 
by the way. That is one little desk and one little story. There are 
stories of majesty and courage and wonderful representation, great 
debate.
  This is the Chamber where Webster stood and gave his orations. It is 
the Chamber where the great debates about this country's history and 
future occur. I am not suggesting tonight's debate will rise to quite 
that occasion, but we are starting tonight to have an opportunity to 
exchange views in a debate sponsored by the Republican Policy Committee 
and the Democratic Policy Committee. I say thank you to the four 
colleagues who will participate and say I think this does advance the 
opportunity to exchange views and to have the American people learn 
from that exchange of views about the two parties' positions on some 
very important issues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, as in 
executive session, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:30 this evening, 
the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 356, 
to be followed immediately by a vote on the confirmation of No. 361, 
provided that immediately following those votes the President be 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative 
session; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate 
prior to each of the votes.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--and I shall not object--I do 
want to have the Record spread with the same statement Senator Daschle 
made earlier today. We have a number of amendments pending, two of 
which were offered by our Democratic leader, on which we are ready to 
vote. Senator Bingaman offered an amendment. We are ready to vote on 
that. We are going to do everything we can to proceed through the 
amendments tomorrow. We will cooperate as much as we can. There are 
other Senators who have amendments to offer. We have indicated to the 
majority leader that we want to finish this bill tomorrow so we can 
move on to another appropriations bill.
  I want the Record spread with the fact it is not we who are holding 
up this bill. We are ready to vote as of 5 today--as of now. We still 
think we can do the bill tomorrow. There are Senators who are going to 
offer amendments, and we do not want them to believe they are rushed 
because of our inactivity today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am informed that the manager is 
working hard to try to establish a time in the morning for those votes.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________